Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08002-06
Original file (08002-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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


LCC
Docket No. 8002-06
1 Nov 06





This is in reference to you application fo 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 31 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 furnished by CMC memorandum 1400/3 1~4MPR-2, 11 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 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director
        





Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNWED STATES MARINE CORPS
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
         HARRY LEE HALL, 17 LEJEUNE ROAD 
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5104

                 
                                    IN REPLY REFER TO:
         1400/3
         OCT 11 2006


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:

Ref:     (a) BCNR Docket Number:
08002-O6 of 8 Sep 06
         (b) MCTFS composite score 123 remarks screen

(c) MCO PI400.32D, ENLPROMMAN


1.       Per reference (a) XXXX request back pay from 1 April 2003 through 6 September 2003 due to a promotion to sergeants.

2.       A review of XXXXXX record in the Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS) verifies she was promoted to corporal (E-4), her highest rank held of active duty, on 1 December 2001.
                  Per refer (b), and in accordance with reference (c), composite score was computed as 1582 for the
April/May/June 2003 promotion period. The required cutting scores for XXXXX military occupational specialty (MOS) (3043) for April and May was 1701 and 1688 respectively. Her MOS was closed for promotion to sergeant during the month of June 2003. No documentation could be found showing XXXXX was ever promoted to sergeant prior to being transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) on 7 September 2003. On 1 April 2005, XXXX was promoted to sergeant as a member of the IRR.

3. Based on the foregoing, XXXXX did not meet the requirements to be promoted to sergeant prior to her release from active duty on 6 September 2003 and her sergeant date of rank is correct in MCTFS as 1 April 2005. It is therefore recommended that her request for back pay not be granted favorable consideration.

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06319-06

    Original file (06319-06.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 l’II4PR-2, 30 August 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 | CY2009 | 01498-09

    Original file (01498-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    01498-09 25 August 2009 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 24 August 2009. 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...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 00688-06

    Original file (00688-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2006. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03192-06

    Original file (03192-06.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 from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 7 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00042-07

    Original file (00042-07.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) XXXXX , requests backdate/remedial consideration for promotion to gunnery sergeant by the FY 2004 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board due to having an inaccurate fitness report removed from his record.2. Paragraph 3602.51 of reference (b) states, when a Marine fails to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04272-06

    Original file (04272-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chief Petty Officer XXXX was selected to Senior Chief Petty Officer with an effective date of 16 December 1998.b. BCNR ltr LCC:ddj Docket No: 9653-02 of 1 April 2003, directed Chief retroactive advancement to Senior Chief Petty Officer be effective since there was no advisory indicating he was not in an eligible status to be advanced on that date. RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF HMCM Per reference (c), Chief XXXX new Time in Rate established his first eligibility for consideration to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01535-06

    Original file (01535-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2006. Per reference (a) , Sergeant requests a correction to his DD Form 214, effective 25 January 2000 through 24 January 2004, to reflect the rank of sergeant (E-5) vice corporal (F-A) 2. A review record verifies he was promoted to corporal on 1 January 2003.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00605-06

    Original file (00605-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By correspondence dated 14 November 2003 (copy at Tab B), Petitioner was advised that his selection by the CY 2003 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board had been revoked for unspecified “unprofessional conduct and poor judgment” exhibiting failure to maintain the high standards expected of a Marine Corps staff noncommissioned officer.e. Enclosure (7) documents that a member of the Board’s staff contacted the HQMC Enlisted Promotion Section and was informed that had Petitioner’s selection by the...

  • 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.