Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06624-05
Original file (06624-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
         2 NAVY ANNEX    
         WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                  CRS
                  Docket No: 6624-05
                  8 May 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 19 April 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 Headquarters Marine Corps dated 27 January 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 probable material error or injustice. In this connection the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.

Concerning your request to remove several specifications of misconduct from the nonjudicial punishment you received, the record contains no evidence that you were not guilty as you have claimed, and you submitted no such evidence. 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

























2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3000 MARINE CORPS PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20350-3000
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1070
JA144
        

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj: APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION IN THE CASE OF EX-PFC IV, USMC,
        

         Ref: (a) NDRB, Discharge Review Dec~s~onai Document Docket No. MD 02-00926
(b) Applicant’s Memorandum dtd 10 Aug 2005

1. You requested we provide an advisory opinion on ex-PFC (hereinafter “Applicant”) application to upgrade his discharge from Other than Honorable to General (Under Honorable Conditions).

2. Opinion. We recommend the Board deny relief. The facts and circumstances of the Applicant’s case are adequately presented in reference (a) . The Applicant provides no additional information in reference (b) . We concur in the analysis and conclusions of reference (a) . Applicant fails to provide substantial evidence of probable material error or injustice in support of his application.

3. Conclusion. Accordingly, we recommend the Applicant’s relief be denied.

4. Please contact the Military Law Branch at (703) 614-4250, if you require additional information.





H ead, Military Law Branch
Judge Advocate Division

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10364-05

    Original file (10364-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the Board for correction of Naval Records (BCNR) has not removed the administrative reduction from XXXX record. You requested we provide an advisory opinion on Corporal Ramirez’s (hereinafter “Applicant”) application to reinstate his previous rank of Sergeant (Applicant was administratively reduced to Corporal) -2. Applicant claims he was reduced to Private First Class (PFC), but there is no documented evidence in Applicant’s record stating this reduction took place.4.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00610-06

    Original file (00610-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 2007. 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. Applicant fails to provide substantial evidence of probable material error or injustice in support of his application.3.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02628-07

    Original file (02628-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps dated30 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. 21 You requested an advisory opinion ~ (hereinafter “Applicant”) application, docket #02628-0 , or removal of records relating to Applicant’s Competency Review Board (CRB) held on 16 May 2006 for professional incompetence.2. A Marine is to be formally counseled on his or her deficiencies before ORB proceedings are initiated.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02965-08

    Original file (02965-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory Opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 24 April 2008, a copy of which is attached. 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. Applicant now requests that his NUP be removed from his record stating that his driving while impaired charge was dismissed by the civilian courts.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06062-07

    Original file (06062-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 14 August 2007, a copy of which is attached. You requested an advisory opinion on the revocation of Staff Sergeant Valdez’s (hereinafter “Applicant”) appointment to the grade of Gunnery Sergeant and the removal of a charge he received at Battalion level Non-Judicial Punishment (NUP) . On 3 May 2007, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, informed the Applicant that he was revoking his promotion...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00002-08

    Original file (00002-08.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. In accordance with the reference, an application for correction of a record must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice unless the Board excuses the untimely filing in the interest of justice. No corrective action is warranted in this case because Applicant fails to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08286-05

    Original file (08286-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1070 JAN7, 27 January 2006, a copy of each is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You requested we provide an advisory opinion on~ (hereinafter “Applicant”) application to correct a wrongful reduction in rank.2. Instead this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08989-05

    Original file (08989-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by HQMC memorandum 1070 JAM7 of 20 December 2005, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), letter of 5 April 2006, copies of which are 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. You requested an advisory opinion on Private(hereinafter “Applicant”)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10025-06

    Original file (10025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 15 December 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 probable material error or injustice. Applicant’s request for removal of his FitRep and all references to his NJP from his OMPF should be denied.3. The standard of proof at NJP is “by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00065-07

    Original file (00065-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 2 April 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your rebuttal.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. You requested we provide an advisory opinion on Lance Corporal Martin’s (hereinafter “Applicant”) application, docket #00065-07, to...