Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08342-06
Original file (08342-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100


 BJG
 Docket No: 8342-06
 12 April 2007

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 12 April 2007. 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 opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 25 October 2006 with enclosures and 2 November 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. 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. The Board found your selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 or 2007 Reserve Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your Career Retirement Credit Report had been correct. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove either of your failures of selection by the FY 2006 and 2007 Reserve Major Selection Boards, it had no grounds to set aside your discharge from the Marine Corps Reserve on 1 November 2006. In view of the above, 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,




Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
         QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                           1600 CMT
                                                                                  OCT 2 2 006
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

 Subj:    RESERVE AFFAIR$ DIVISION ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION; CASE 0
          Ref:     (a)      DD Form 149 dtd 13 Sep 06
                  (b)      BCNR request for advisory opinion of 10 Oct 06
                  (c)      Telephone conversation on 17 Oct 06 with MMPR
                           representative
DD-214s, and CRCR

 1.       Per reference (a) and (b), we have reviewed4U~rnUIIhI~~Mj request for the removal of his failures of selection to Major while in the Marine Corps Reserve. ~ he was passed for selection on two occasions due to errors on his Career Retirement Credit Report.
2. Upon review o~~IjhUh  ~ record, we determined that he was considered for promotion and not selected by the FY06 and FY07 Reserve Major Promotion Board. He was considered in zone dunn the FY06 board and above zone by the FY07 board.
 ‘record does have several errors, which are identified below. These errors do not appear to be the reason for his nonselection.
3.       It appears ~ DD-214s reflect incorrect information which has been used to produce other documents in his record, such as his Career Retirement Credit Report (CRCR). These errors include an overstatement of his total amount of active duty and incorrect social security number. We recommend that his DD-214s and CRCR be reviewed and corrected. It also appears that he was credited with several years of active duty that he did not serve. This overstatement of active duty contributed to what we believe to be an overpayment of his separation pay in 2004. We recommend that the appropriate agency recalculate this amount and take the appropriate action to recoup
 Subj:    RESERVE AFFAIRS DIVISION ADV S Q ION,. ON CNR APPLICATIO

any overpayment. Furthermore, it is the sole responsibility of the individual Marine to ensure that their records reflect accurate and correct information.

4. Per reference (c), the promotion board considers the Marine’s entire record, not just one or two documents. The Promotion Branch states that the CRCR is not used to determine the eligibility of officers. Therefore,4~~~UjEUU~llegation that his incorrec~ CRCR led to his ineligibility is not accurate.
 ~~UUMUMfhU~ his Master Brief Sheet contains two adverse fitness reports and five other reports that are marked below the reporting senior’s average. These reports also have very low reviewing officer’s marks. One of the adverse reports is due to poor performance, specifically his inability to effectively lead subordinates. The second adverse report addresses issues that I nvyly~ possible officer misconduct; specifically, that - ornrnitted bigamy. Due to these performance issues and misconduct during his career, one can speculate that these are the reasons he was not selected for promotion.

5. Based on current law, specifically Title 10, U.S. Code,
Sections 14505 and 14513, he will be involuntarily separated on 1
November 2006. We do not concur with his request and regrettably
cannot act on his desire to further serve in the Marine Corps
Reserve.


 ~4a1{~/
 R.       F. LARSEN
 By direction
Of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07196-06

    Original file (07196-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As reflected in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed removing the contested section K’s and the word quiet,” and HQMC has modified the report for 1 August 1999 to 29 February 2000 to show “CAPT” (captain) vice “MAJ” (major) in section A, item i.e (grade). If Petitioner is correct that he did not receive a copy of the report when it was completed, the Board finds this would not be a material error warranting relief, as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01792

    Original file (BC-2006-01792.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since his retention/retirement (R/R) date and the promotion board dates are out of synchronization, the promotion boards have been unable to see how active he has been in the Reserves. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPB recommends the applicant’s request be denied. The applicant met all the eligibility requirements for consideration by the FY06 and FY07 Reserve Line and Nonline Major Selection Boards that convened at HQ ARPC...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03928

    Original file (BC-2006-03928.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He has submitted and has been paid his FY07 Incentive Special Pay by meeting the requirements of the FY07 MSP Plan and Instructions which was provided with his application. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-03928 in Executive Session on 21 February 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael J.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02004

    Original file (BC-2006-02004.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her request, applicant provided a letter from her current commander, along with other documents related to the UIF and promotion deferrals. On 30 Jun 03, the commander filed the Article 15 in the applicant’s HQ USAF Selection Record and Officer Command Selection Record. The applicant did not request the Article 15 be removed from her OSR after her nonselection by the FY06 LHP Major Selection Board and, according to HQ ARPC/DPBPP’s email to the AFBCMR Staff, has yet to file an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00628-07

    Original file (00628-07.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 her naval record be corrected by removing her failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Chief Warrant Officer 4 (CWO4) Selection Board. By enclosure (2), she added a request to remove her failure of selection by the FY 2006 CWO4 Selection Board, so as to be considered by the selection board that next convenes to consider...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09438-06

    Original file (09438-06.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) 2006 and 2007 Reserve Major Selection Boards~ so he will be eligible for current reappointment as an officer in the Marine Corps Reserve. In enclosure (4), CMT recommends removing only one of Petitioner’s failures of selection for promotion,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03898-08

    Original file (03898-08.pdf) 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. On that particular board there were 10 eligible for promotion and only 8 were promotedig a mem shows that he communicated with the President of the FY "Board when he was below zone and enclosed a letter from CCE/MCU that stated he had completed the Warfighting PME and was thus PME complete. ...

  • 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018177

    Original file (20080018177.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his date of rank (DOR) for colonel (O-6) be adjusted to 15 July 2007 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), paragraphs 1-21 and 8-10. The applicant submits in support of his application a self authored memorandum addressed to the Secretary of the Army, dated 16 September 2008, in which he requests that he be granted the same DOR and position on the active duty list from the FY07 Colonel, Dental Corps Selection Results with a sequence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06

    Original file (06373-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...