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




                                                      LCC
                                                      Docket No. 588-06
                                                      7 Feb 06








   This 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 7 February
   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 po1icies.Inaddition,~~~d considered the advisory opinion
   furnished 19 December 2005, 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 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 also 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 PFIEFFER




   Enclosure







                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                   HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                             3000 MARINE CORPS PENTAGON
                          WASHINGTON, DC 20350-3000




                                                                 IN
                                                                 REPLY
                                                                 REFER
                                                                 TO:


1070


            JAM7
      DEC 19 2005



     MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
                         RECORDS

     Subj: APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION IN THE CASE OF STAFF SERGEANT
      Ref:  (a)  MCO P1610.llE Performance Evaluation System
            (b)  MCO P1400.32C MARCORPI~OI4AN (Enlisted)

     1.    You requested we provide an advisory opinion on Staff Sergeant
     (hereinafter “Applicant’) application to be considered for remedial
     promotion to the grade of Gunnery Sergeant.

     .2.   Opinion. We recommend that the Board reject Applicant’s
     requested relief because of Applicant’s lack of due diligence to seek
     removal of his adverse fitness report or correct the date gap. Our
     analysis follows.

     3.    Background

          a.     During the reporting period of 6 June 1998 through 30
     September 1998, Applicant received an adverse fitness report. Per
     reference (a), all fitness reports must be submitted within 30 days of
     the ending date. However, due to several revisions, some at request of
     Applicant, others at direction of the Commanding General, Applicant’s
     fitness report was not signed off until 22 April 1999. Applicant’s
     adverse fitness was entered into his official record while his record
     was before the calendar year Se1ectjon Board. Subsequently, Applicant
     was not selected for promotion on the calendar year 1999, Gunnery
     Sergeant Selection Board.

          b.     On 28 May 2004, almost 4 years after his first non—
     selection, Applicant submitted a package to the Board for Correction
     Of Naval Records. (BCNR) to remove the adverse fitness report of
     980606 - 980930. This request was granted on 16 September 2004.




Subj: APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION IN THE CASE OF STAFF SERGEANT


     c.    On 31 March 2005, Applicant reached his service limitations and
retired from active duty. Although retired in the grade of Staff Sergeant,
Applicant submitted a request for remedial promotion on 9 November 2005, 7
months after his retirement. Applicant was ineligible for redress through
the Remedial Promotion Board process provided in reference (b) since he was
no longer on active duty.

4.    Analysis

     a.    As an initial observation, we note that no legal error occurred
in the non-selection of Applicant for promotion to the grade of Gunnery
Sergeant during calendar year 1999 or any subsequent year there after.

     b.    In accordance with reference (b), Marines requesting
consideration for remedial promotion must initiate an application within 1
year of non-selection. Moreover, reference (b) requires due diligence to
seek corrective action and remedial promotion. Both the documentary
evidence and Applicant’s admissions in his current petition demonstrate his
failure to exercise due diligence to correct date gaps and his adverse
fitness report. Applicant had full knowledge that his official record
contained a significant date gap and an adverse fitness report during the
years of non—selection.

     c.    Applicant was complacent by assuming his record was complete and
accurate without verification. Applicant admits that over a 2-year period
while he was continuously being denied promotion, he did not order or
review his OMPF. All Marines are taught that they are responsible for their
own record and must periodically review it to ensure completeness. At the
time of his first non-selection Applicant was not a junior Marine
inexperienced with the Marine Corps. To the contrary, he was a staff
noncommissioned officer looking at selection to Gunnery Sergeant. Further,
trained enlisted counselors at the Personal Management Division, Manpower
and Reserve Affairs, were available to assist Applicant and review reasons
why he was not competitive for promotion. Yet, it is apparent that
Applicant failed to request their assistance since a review of his official
record would have been conducted. What is apparent in this petition for
relief is that Applicant consciously avoided reviewing his official record
or seeking counseling about his record. As a result, Applicant s inaction
for almost 4 years is


                                      2












Subj:   APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION IN THE CASE OF   USMC

a clear demonstration of lack of due diligence and he should not now
benefit for his inaction.

     d.    Finally, Applicant claims that while deployed he did not have
access to necessary information to justify the removal of his adverse
fitness report is without merit. First, this does not excuse Applicants
lack of due diligence between the 1999 non-selection for promotion and the
time of his deployment. Second, this limited period of time deployed alone
does not justify the untimely nature of his request for remedial
consideration or his lack of due diligence to correct his record.

5. Conclusion. Accordingly, due to the fact that Applicant failed to
properly maintain his own OMPF, and his demonstrated la4ck of due
diligence, we recommend no relief be granted

6.    Please contact the Military Law Branch at          if  you require
additional information.




























                                      3