Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05866-06
Original file (05866-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
         WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO
         TRG
         Docket No: 5866 - 06
         29 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 28 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 an advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps and the Commandant of the Marine Corps Fourth Endorsement on the Commanding General, Training and Education Command letter of 31 October 2005, copies of which are enclosed.

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,





Enclosure




DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATE MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL R AD
QUANT1CO, VIRGINIA 22 34-5103
         REFER TO:

         M EMORAM DUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTO R , BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:    BCNR APPLICATION         USMC (RET RED,

Ref:     (a) HQMC Route Sheet, Docket N o . 05866-06 of 11 Aug 06

1.       The reference requests an advisor opinion on petition t correct his reco rd to show
That he was retired as a Colonel (0-6 and issue him a SE~ code that calculates his retired pay in a on standard manner claims that his retirement as a Lieutenant Colonel and the SEP code 4ie was assigned upon retirem e nt were excessive.

2.       On 26 January 2006, this Headquar t ers was directed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN) to retire then-at the lesser grade of Lieutenant Col o nel. This was direct as a result of punitive action taken again t . Therefore, this Headquarters defers to the ASN f r an opinion on the motives for directing reduction on retirement.

3. This Headquarters assumes that is referring to the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Co e when he uses the term “SEP Code.” Specifically, claim that his SPD Code incorrectly directs that his retirement pay be based on his rank the day after he retired. All SPD Cod s issued by this Headquarters require retired pay to be based on a member’s rank the day after the member’s retirement. Hi SPD Code directs retired pay calculation no different than any the y SPD Code.

4.       Regretfully, this Headquarters mus recommend that the petition for SPD Code not  variable consideration. Point of contact is              

.
        
Head, S e paration and
Retirem
e nt Branch
By dire
c tion of the Commandant
of the
M a ri ne Corps











Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08063-06

    Original file (08063-06.rtf) 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 his naval record be corrected by removing his failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 and 1995 Reserve Major Selection Boards, so he will be eligible for current reappointment as. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Cooper, McBride and Schultz, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 November 2006, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02655-06

    Original file (02655-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, while the contested report’s late submission is not condoned, the Board was unable to find this invalidated it.In view of the above, your application has been denied. Enclosure • DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22i34~5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OFNAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION~ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF (a) DD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05149-99

    Original file (05149-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    M&RA noted specifically that Petitioner's relationship with the On 23 June 1999, the petty officer Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASN(M&RA)) directed Petitioner's discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service. this relief is neither available Accordingly, a Petitioner supports his request for an honorable characterization of service with essentially four arguments: b. one, his discharge was improper because it was not based on...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 09850-06

    Original file (09850-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    References (b) through (d), in effect at the time of Petitioner’s transfer, reference the plenary authority of the Secretary of the Navy to transfer a member to the Fleet Reserve in a reduced paygrade. Regulations in effect at the time of Petitioner’s transfer reference the plenary authority of SECNAV to transfer a member to the Fleet Reserve in a reduced paygrade. On 7 January 2004, Petitioner, a chief petty officer (E-7), was authorized by ASN(M&RA) to transfer to the Fleet Reserve,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05712-06

    Original file (05712-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, Performance Evaluation Review Branch, 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. VIRGINIA 22 34-5103REFER TO: MMR/RE June 26 2006MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08979-06

    Original file (08979-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 11 June 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 relief should be denied as his administrative separation was conducted in accordance with applicable regulations. Applicant first...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 06399-07

    Original file (06399-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by CMC memorandums 1920 MMSR-3 of 16 May 2008 and 1050 MPO-40 -of 8 August 2008, a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02345-03

    Original file (02345-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Bo?.rd consisted of in support your application, together with all material submrtted thereof, your naval record and applicable statuteg, regulations and policies. ~t a records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of r i n official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice1 Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIF: ~ x e c u t i v e D i m Enclosure I ) .