Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05562-06
Original file (05562-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BIG
Docket No: 5562-06
5 October 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.

You requested “Relief from separation [from the Marine Corps
Reserve] in connection with being twice passed over for
promotion [Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 Reserve Major Selection
Boards] .”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 5 October 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 from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated

28 July 2006 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached. The
Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 5 September
2006.

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,

Lo Sood

W. DEAN PFELSF
Executive D r

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09708-06

    Original file (09708-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 October 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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08342-06

    Original file (08342-06.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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions, except it did not consider the recommendations, in the opinion dated 25 October 2006, for corrective action, as you did not request them, and they do not require action by the Board. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01235-08

    Original file (01235-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2008. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion in concluding you have not established you should have been promoted on either 1 April or 1 June 2005, but you should have been promoted on 1 July 2005, before the date of your discharge on 19 March 2006. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09809-09

    Original file (09809-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further requested that these reports, as well as the report for 31 October 2007 to 30 June 2008, be modified by adding, to section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] meets Physical Evaluation criteria in MCO [Marine Corps Order] 6100.12, and is within standards.” Finally, you requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2010 Active Reserve Colonel Selection Board, and granting you special selection board consideration...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10633-06

    Original file (10633-06.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 CNC memorandum 1400/3 MNPR-2, 19 December 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 | CY2006 | 04858-06

    Original file (04858-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:4858-068 December 2006This is in reference to your letter dated 24 May 2006 with enclosure, submitted in response to the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 28 April 2006. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 08782-08

    Original file (08782-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, remedial consideration for promotion from the Fiscal Year 2006 Marine Corps Reserve Staff Sergeant Selection Board. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2008. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08393-06

    Original file (08393-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08818-06

    Original file (08818-06.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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 October 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...