Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00042-07
Original file (00042-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                  DEPARTMENT OFTHE NAVY
                 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                  2 NAVY ANNEX
                  WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


LCC
Docket No. 42-07
14 Mar 07






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 13 March 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 opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1400/3 NMPR-2, 1 February 2007, 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,


                          DEAN PFEIFFER
                  Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
         HARRY LEE HALL, 17 LEJEUNE ROAD 
         QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134.5104





                  IN REPLY REFER TO:                         1400/3
                  MMPR-2



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

Subj:    ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF

Ref:     (a) BCNR Docket Number 00042-07 of 29 Dec 06
(b) MCO Pl400.32D, ENLPROMMAN

1.       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.       A review of the selection board records indicates was properly considered but not selected by the FY 2004 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board. Per reference (b), paragraph 3602.3, due diligence requires that a Marine identify errors, discrepancies or an injustice in his or her record in a timely manner and initiate appropriate corrective action. Accordingly, a Marine’s request for remedial consideration must detail the steps taken to ensure the completeness and accuracy of his or her official records prior to the convening of the selection board that considered but did not select the Marine. Paragraph 3602.51 of reference (b) states, when a Marine fails to demonstrate due diligence in the correction of errors or injustices in the record, or in the submission of a request for remedial promotion consideration, there is no basis for granting remedial consideration. The FY 2004 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Boar_~ convened on 19 April 2004. Further research showed XXXXXX did not take action to have his fitness report removed until 24 October 2004. The Performance Evaluation Review Board made their final decision to remove the fitness report on 21 December 2004. Furthermore, was selected for promotion by the FY 2005 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board.

                  3.       Based on the foregoing, XXXX does not meet the requirements for backdate/remedial consideration for promotion to gunnery sergeant by the FY 2004 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board.



Major, U.S. Marine Corps
Head, Enlisted Promotion Section

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06554-07

    Original file (06554-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    That board considered Petitioner for promotion, but did not select him.d. Based on the findings and action of the PERB, the Board concludes that the marginal fitness reports should not have been part of Petitioner’s naval record when he was considered for promotion in 2006.Whether Petitioner would have been selected for promotion in 2006 or not (without the marginal fitness reports) cannot be known and is largely a matter of conjecture. Moreover, when asked to provide substantive comments...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01607-07

    Original file (01607-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On April 15, 2005, Petitioner, through counsel, submitted an application to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) seeking removal of the January 1, 2001 to July 7,2Docket No. 01607-072001 fitness report, removal of naval records pertaining to the NJP and a remedial promotion board See enclosure (4)g. Petitioner’s request was bifurcated. Here, Petitioner did not take any action to have his fitness report removed until 15 April 2005, well after the dates of the Selection Boards...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07636-08

    Original file (07636-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 2008. The Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the HQMC memo 1400/3 MMPR-2 of 8 Sept 08, a copy of which is attached. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7775 13

    Original file (NR7775 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was then selected by the FY 2012 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, convened on 17 April 2012, and he was promoted to gunnery sergeant with a date of rank and effective date of 1 December 2012. d. Enclosure (4) shows that the in zone percentage selected for the FY 2006 Staff Sergeant Selection Board was 62.2. e. Enclosure (5) reflects that the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board directed removing Petitioner's fitness report for 1 April to 2 November 2006, which documented the later...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10714-06

    Original file (10714-06.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 NMPR-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 | CY2002 | 03401-02

    Original file (03401-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 LCC: ddj Docket No: 3401-02 10 September 2002 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. 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...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 06748-08

    Original file (06748-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case (docket number 2803-07), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09296-08

    Original file (09296-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also impliedly requested reconsideration of your previous request to adjust your gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-7) date of rank and effective date to reflect selection by the Calendar Year (CY) 2001 or 2002 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, rather than CY 2003. While the Board did consider your having been selected for promotion to master sergeant the first time you were considered with a corrected record to be new and material evidence in support of backdating your promotion to gunnery...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09101-06

    Original file (09101-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    9101-06 11 Jan 07This 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 9 January 2007. 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. A review of...