Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06669-03
Original file (06669-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  F O R C O R R E C T I O N   OF  N A V A L R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y A N N E X  

WASHINGTON  D C   20370-5100 

BJG 
Docket No:  6669-03 
20 October 2003 

Dear Colone- 

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. 

You  requested adjustment of  your colonel date of  rank and effective date to reflect selection 
by  the Fiscal Year  (FY) 2002 Reserve Colonel Selection Board, rather than the FY 2004 
Reserve Colonel Selection Board. 

A three-member panel of  the Board  for Correction of  Naval Records,  sitting in executive 
session, considered your application on  17 October 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.  The Board also considered its 
file on your previous case, docket number  10443-02.  In addition, the Board considered the 
advisory opinion furnished by  Headquarters Marine Corps, dated  8 September 2003, and the 
memcrsandmn for the record dated  15 Octcrher 7003,  copies of  which  are attached.  Finally, 
the Board considered your electronic mail dated  14 October 2003. 

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. 

The Board  recognized you  were selected by  the first promotion board  to consider you  after 
your record was corrected; and  they  further recognized that in  your previous case, the same 
office that provided the unfavorable advisory opinion on your current case stated  "It is likely 
[your] competitiveness for promotion would  have been considerably improved if  [the fitness 
report from which  the reviewing officer marks and comments were removed] was not in 
[your] record."  The Board also understood that the issue in  your case is not to determine 
why  you  were selected by  the FY 2004 promotion  board, or whether the removed  material 

was the sole or significant factor contributing to your  failures of  selection by  the FY 2002 and 
2003 promotion boards; rather, it is to determine whether your  selection would have been 
probable,  had  you  enjoyed the benefit of a corrected record.  However, the Board was unable 
to find your  selection by  either the FY 2002 or 2003 Reserve Colonel Selection Board would 
have been  probable, had  your record been corrected. 

In  view of  the above, 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, 

Executive Directo 

Enclosures 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

HEADQUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

3280 RUSSELL ROAD 

QUANTICO, VlROlNlA  22134-5103 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 
1600 
CMT 
8 Sep 03 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj:  RESERVE AFFAIRS ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION: 

CASE OF COLONEL 

USMCR 

1.  We have reviewed Colonel 
request for adjustment of 
date of rank, lineal precedence number, and pay/allowances based 
on previous board non-selections and subsequent selection on the 
FY04 board.  We recommend disapproval of all requests based on 
the following rationale. 

2.  While it appears that ~ o l o n e l ~ s u b m i t t e d  adequate 
material for the FY02-04 boards, it should be noted that during 
the FY04 board on which she was selected for promotion, there 
were an additional four fitness reports covering the period from 
30 Mar 2001-30 Nov 2002 that were not part of her record when 
she was ori ina  *, 
substantiate that the 

s R  

* removed 

factor for failures of selection during the FY02 or FY03 board 
or its removal constituted the reason for selection during FY04 
and therefore does not recommend the adjustment of the requested 
items. 

significant contributing 

Point of contact is ~a- 

at 

-.-. 

-- 

By direction 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) 

PERFORMANCE SECTION 
2 NAVY ANNEX, SUITE 2432 
WASHINGTON, DC  20370-5100 

TELEPHONE:  (703) 614-2293 OR  DSN 224-2293 
FACSIMILE:  (703) 614-9857 OR  DSN 224-9857 

MEMORANDUM FOR  THE RECORD 

DATE:  150CT03 

DOCKET NO: 

PETITIONER  (PET) 

SMCR 

PERSON I  CALLED. c, HQMC MMPR-1 

WHAT I SAID:  I AS 
WHAT DOR  AND E 
SEL BY  THE FY-02 USMCR  COL SEL BD. 

AT PET'S  CURRENT DOR  AND EFF IS, AND 
LD HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED HAD SHE BEEN 

WHAT  PARTY  SAID-TATED 
DATE IS  1JUL03, AND HER DATE OF RANK  AND EFF DATE WOULD HAVE BEEN 
lOCTOl HAD SHE BEEN SEL BY  THE FY-02  SEL BD. 

THAT PET'S CURRENT DOR AND  EFF 

COMMENTS :  NIA 

BRIAN J.  GEORGE 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06104-02

    Original file (06104-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I3oard 2oo0, 2001 or 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection 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. Because this material was used in the board's decision to current date of selection on the FY03 licable material in his Lieutenant Colone The selection process and date of rank assignment of a 4. regularly scheduled board is different...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07688-02

    Original file (07688-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected that to show that he did not fail of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Active Reserve Major Selection Board. The Board, consisting of Messrs. McBride, allegations of error and injustice on 7 November 2002, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01252-02

    Original file (01252-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show the lineal position, date of rank, and effective date in the grade of lieutenant colonel he would have been assigned had he been selected for promotion to that grade by the (FY) 2002 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, vice the FY 2003 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. That Petitioner...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02993-02

    Original file (02993-02.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 Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 31 May 2002, and the memorandum for the record dated 18 August 2003, copies of which are attached. Lieutenant Colonel completed the Marine Corps Command and Staff course in 1995.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08303-01

    Original file (08303-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BJG Docket No: 8303-01 4 January 2002 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: two REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD , USM Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 8 Nov 01 w/attachments (2) HQMC MMOA-4 memo dtd 7 Dee 0 1 (3) Memo for record dtd 11 (4) Subject ’s naval record Dee 01 Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02041-01

    Original file (02041-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the record and 02 USMC He petitioned the porting Senior fitness report of 980831 to 990731. requests removal of his failures of selection. Performance Evaluation Review Board He failed selection He petitioned the (PERB) for removal of the rting Senior fitness report of 980831 to 990630. equests removal of his failures of selection. Head, Personnel Management Support was removed from the OMPF on 5 October emphatically states that the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08216-01

    Original file (08216-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Humberd and Suiter and Mr. Lippolis, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 15 August 2002, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on the date of this Report of Proceedings,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00337-02

    Original file (00337-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 1 February 2002, and a memorandum for the record (MFR) dated 11 March 2002, copies of which are attached. as listed with a d. Reference (c) states "...officers retired voluntarily shall be retired in th satisfactorily held ..." grade of Major effecti issioned officer grade luntarily retired in the e. Due t retirement on 990501, his selection to lieutenant colonel was nullified. Per references (d) and ( would...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08387-97

    Original file (08387-97.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The fact that the MMOA-4 advisory opinion dated 29 November 1995 did not compare your record with a sampling of records of your peers from the FY 1996 Major Selection Board. In your previous case, you requested removal of your failures by the FY 1996 and 1997 Major Selection Boards, and remedial consideration for promotion. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 1000 NAVY PENTAGON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-1000 15 February 2000 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08229-01

    Original file (08229-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Kastner and Rothlein and Ms. Schnittman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 January 2002, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) removed 1996 weight control entries relating to Petitioner from the Marine Corps Total Force System after he had been considered and not selected by the CY 1999 and not...