Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00603-03
Original file (00603-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
                                    WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                                                                                          LCC:ddj
                                                                                          Docket No: 603-03
                                                                                          26 August 2003





This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 2003. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1400/3 MMPR 2 of 7 August 2003, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

                                                               Sincerely,



                                                               W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                                               Executive Director



Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Headquarters UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MANPOWER AND
RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
         HARRY LEE HALL, 17 LEJEUNE ROAD
         QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134.5104


                  IN REPLY REFER TO:
         1400/3
         MMPR-2

MEMORT~NDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:    ADVISORY OPINIONIN THE CASE OF

Ref:     (a} BCNR Docket No: 603-03 of 29 Jul 03
(b)     MCO P1400.32C, ENLPROMMAN
        
         1.       Sergeant XXXX asserts he should have been promoted to the rank of staff sergeant on 1 April 2000.

2.       Per reference (a), Sergeant was non-competitively selected for promotion by the CY 1999 Staff Sergeant Selection Board. Prior to Sergeant ‘s seniority number l843A being reached for promotion, he was disenrolled from the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program (MECEP) due to poor performance. Per reference (b) paragraph 3503.2, a Marine participating in the MECEP who is non-competitively selected for promotion by a Staff Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) selection board, and who subsequently disenrolled from the MECEP or is not tendered an appointment as a commissioned officer prior to the date the enlisted advancement should occur, will be considered to have been erroneously selected in the noncompetitive category. If Sergeant remained on active duty, he would have been eligible to submit a request for remedial promotion consideration. Accordingly, Sergeant s erroneous promotion selection to staff sergeant was
administratively deleted from the CY 1999 Staff Sergeant Selection list.

         3.       Sergeant XXXX does not meet the requirements to be promoted to staff sergeant.


Major, U.S. Marine Corps
Head, Enlisted Promotion Section

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 00698-04

    Original file (00698-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 May 2004. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Per reference (a), Gunnery Sergeant requests promotion to the rank of master sergeant.2.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07923-02

    Original file (07923-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. opinion furnished by CMC memorandum is attached. board process precludes Sergean based upon a majority vote of the board members, his record was not competitive with the records of the Marines selected for promotion.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07773-02

    Original file (07773-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1400 MMPR 2 of 17 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01685-06

    Original file (01685-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the alternative, you now request new enlisted remedial selection boards (ERSB’s) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1999, 2000 and 2001 master sergeant and first sergeant selection boards.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. The Board found the ~Th’IPR-2 advisory opinion dated 2 August 2006 was correct as to the number of Marines with whom you were compared, despite the indications, in the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03326-06

    Original file (03326-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1400/3 MMPR-2, 12 October 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04454-02

    Original file (04454-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03723-01

    Original file (03723-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    has requested to have his date of rank selected by the CY 1997 Gunnery considered in zone for contends that the reason he was Gunnery Sergeant wh as considered and not selected for 8 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Boards. Gunnery Sergeant promotion by CY 1997 The specific reason(s) why he was not selected by either of these two Many high quality Marines are not selected boards is not known. upon a majority vote of the board members, his record was not competitive with the records of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09101-06

    Original file (09101-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    9101-06 11 Jan 07This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 Usc 1552.A three—member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 January 2007. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. A review of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03192-06

    Original file (03192-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 7 June 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09317-02

    Original file (09317-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    9317-02 21 August 2003 Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy Review of naval record (a) Title 10 U.S.C. The Marines considered for promotion for the CY 2001 Reserve Staff Noncommissioned Officer Selection Board were given only a 41.6% promotion opportunity when the Marine Corps guidelines guarantee a minimum of 60% opportunity for promotion to E-8. Inflation of the promotion zone is not listed as one of the reasons for remedial promotion nevertheless when...