Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06293-05
Original file (06293-05.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
‘ 2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No. 06293-05
21 November 2006

 

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 9 November 2006. 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 Head, Separation and Retirement Branch,
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (HQMC), dated 9 December 2005,
and the Head, Enlisted Promotion Section, HQMC, dated 23 March
2006. A copy of each opinion 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
from the Head, Enlisted Promotion Section,’ HQMC, concerning your
request for promotion to staff sergeant. The Board disagreed
with the recommendation from the Head, Separation and Retirement
Branch, HQMC, that your case be referred to the Physical
Evaluation Board, because the available records fail to
demonstrate that the knee injury you suffered in 1999 while
working at your civilian job was causally related to your service
in the Marine Corps Reserve or your previous knee injury, or that
the injury rendered you unfit for further service by reason of
physical disability on 14 September 2001 when you declined to
reenlist and were transferred to non-drilling status in the
Marine Corps Reserve. The Board noted that you did not report
the knee injury in the Annual Certificate of Physical Condition
you completed on 4 December 1999, or the Report of Medical
History you completed on 28 February 2000, when you were examined
and found to be fit for military duty. You also failed to
disclose your receipt of disability compensation from _ the
Department of Veterans Affairs for a previous knee injury.

In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied.
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,
\WQ 0a. Gh.

W. DEAN PF
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03521-00

    Original file (03521-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Reference (a) requests an advisory opinion on former Sergeant equest to have his records corrected to show that he was not discharged from the Marine Corps on 27 May 1999, and to further show that he is retired by reason of physical disability. MMEA concurs with the recommendation made by Mrs. Jr., Head, Separation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00283-01

    Original file (00283-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 21 March 2001 and undated, copies of which are attached. References (b) through (d) refer to clinical studies on head injury and multiple sclerosis. '_s request to have his records corrected to show that he was retired from the Marine Corps by reason of "combat related" physical disability in the rank of major.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04799-06

    Original file (04799-06.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. The Board noted that only the FY 1971 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, convened on 4 August 1970, could have seen either of the contested letters, and that this promotion board could have seen only the letter dated 11 June 1970. In this regard, the Board found your record also included...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01187-99

    Original file (01187-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    authoriz s been 344 days of became eligible for promotion to Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR) promotion board however, was not selected due to keen 1993 selection message. selected for promotion by any of the boards who considered his record. Head, Reserve Affairs Personnel Management Branch Reserve Affairs Division By direction r DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT HARRY LEE HALL, QUANTICO, VIRGINIA I7 LEJEUNE...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 04718-99

    Original file (04718-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2001. IN REPLY REFER TO: 1400/3 MMPR-2 13 Mar 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF FORMER - ‘ a retired Marine indicates that he completed his he grade of probationary corporal and should have been promoted to the grade of sergeant prior to his retirement from the Marine Corps on 22...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09535-05

    Original file (09535-05.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. Per reference (a) and (b), we have reviewed XXXXX requests to seek formal PME enrollment to be competitive for colonel, remedial promotion consideration, and retroactive active duty credit from 2000-2004. Therefore his request to return to active duty was denied at that time.R.F.

  • 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 | 03660-02

    Original file (03660-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 11 November 1998, Petitioner made an official written statement to the officer assigned to conduct an investigation into the accident for the purpose of making a line of duty / misconduct determination. Petitioner's NJP or the conduct of his BOI.