Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02628-07
Original file (02628-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO



 BJG
 Docket No: 2628-07
 20 July 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 19 July 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 from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 30 May 2007, 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. The Board was unable to find your command did not make reasonable efforts to retrain you or offer rehabilitation from identified deficiencies. The Board was likewise unable to find you were made a scapegoat in an attempt to recover from the embarrassment you had caused. 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,

                                                                        W.DEAN PFEIFFER
                                                                        Executive Director
 Enclosure


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3000 MARINE CORPS PENTAGON
                                                      WASHINGTON, DC 20350-3000
                           IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                  1070 JAM3

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APP~ 1 I. ~TION
         
         Ref:     (a)      CO. MWSS-273 ltr 1400 Adj of 1 May 06
                  (b)      MCO P1400.32C (MARCORPROMMAN), Vol. 2
1 You requested an advisory opinion ~
(hereinafter “Applicant”) application, docket #02628-0 , or
removal of records relating to Applicant’s Competency Review
Board (CRB) held on 16 May 2006 for professional incompetence.
2.       Opinion . We recommend that the requested relief be denied. Our analysis follows.
3.       Background

a.       On 16 May 2006, Applicant was attached to the Marine Wing Support Squadron 273, Cherry Point, North Carolina.
b.       Between September 2005 and May 2006, Applicant received three page 11 entries for disrespect towards his superiors, two written counseling’s for deficiencies in the performance of his duties, and numerous verbal counseling’s for disrespect and performance of his duties.
c.       In accordance with reference (a) , on 16 May 2006, Applicant was the subject of a CRB. The Board was composed in accordance with reference (b), with two officers and one enlisted member. Upon completion, the Board found the Applicant to be professionally incompetent and recommended that he be reduced to the rank of Sergeant.
d.       Applicant now requests that his CRB be removed based on the belief that there was insufficient documentation and chronological errors within the documentation that was presented to the CRB.




4. Analysis

a.       A CRB is not the first measure in correcting a Marine’s deficiencies; in fact it is often the last option a commander chooses to exercise. A Marine is to be formally counseled on his or her deficiencies before ORB proceedings are initiated. A Marine is then given an ample amount of time to correct his deficiencies. When a Marine fails to correct his deficiencies, other options become available. In this case, the Applicant was given ample opportunities with three page 11 entries, two written counseling’s and numerous verbal counseling’s, to correct his deficiencies.
b.       A CR3 is an administrative action, rather than a disciplinary tool. Per reference (b) , “A competency review board is a formal administrative body convened to consider the suitability and ability of a Marine to continue to serve in the grade currently held.” Furthermore, a reduction pursuant to a CR3 is an “administrative action designed to increase the efficiency of the Marine Corps.”
c.       Applicant was provided advance notice of the ORB, an opportunity to consult with qualified legal counsel before the ORB, an opportunity to be heard at the ORB, and all of the other procedural requirements set out by reference (b) . The ORB was conducted in accordance with reference (b) and is sufficient in law and fact.
d.       Futhermore, Applicant claims that the chronological order in which some of the documentation was submitted to the ORB was in error. This claim has no merit.
e.       Finally, Applicant claims that because he received positive comments on the last page of his fitness reports prior to the ORB he should not have been taken to a CRB. What the Applicant fails to mention is that during the period of these fitness reports, he was counseled numerous times on his performance and inability to adapt to stressful situations.
5. Conclusion . Accordingly, we recommend that Applicant’s request for relief be denied.
6. Please contact the Military Law Branch at (703) 614-4250, if you require additional information.


Military Law Branch
 Advocate Division
 By direction of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps
 3

Similar Decisions

  • 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03494-02

    Original file (03494-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board questing, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by setting aside his reduction from staff sergeant (pay grade E-6) to sergeant (pay grade E-S) effected on 21 February 2001, which was the result of competency review board proceedings. with the greatest dispatch consistent with prudence and professionalism, Marine and the Marine Corps." Following...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02965-08

    Original file (02965-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory Opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 24 April 2008, 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. Applicant now requests that his NUP be removed from his record stating that his driving while impaired charge was dismissed by the civilian courts.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10025-06

    Original file (10025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 15 December 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 removal of his FitRep and all references to his NJP from his OMPF should be denied.3. The standard of proof at NJP is “by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00957-07

    Original file (00957-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 8 March 2007, 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. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive DirectorEnclosureDEPARTMENTOF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3000 MARINE CORPS PENTAGONWASHINGTON, DC 20350-3000 N...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06864-06

    Original file (06864-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    requested we provide an advisory opinion on (hereinafter “Applicant”) application to request the punishment he received at his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 7 May 2006 be removed from his OMPF.2. Applicant now requests that his NJP be removed because he feels that he did not receive adequate legal representation prior to his NJP.Subj: APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION THE CASE OF CORPORAL4. While Applicant did appeal his NJP, Applicant’s concerns were reviewed by the Commanding Officer,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06062-07

    Original file (06062-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 14 August 2007, a copy of which is attached. You requested an advisory opinion on the revocation of Staff Sergeant Valdez’s (hereinafter “Applicant”) appointment to the grade of Gunnery Sergeant and the removal of a charge he received at Battalion level Non-Judicial Punishment (NUP) . On 3 May 2007, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, informed the Applicant that he was revoking his promotion...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11293-06

    Original file (11293-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 2 February 2007, 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. 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 | CY2007 | 00065-07

    Original file (00065-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 2 April 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your rebuttal.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. You requested we provide an advisory opinion on Lance Corporal Martin’s (hereinafter “Applicant”) application, docket #00065-07, to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10534-06

    Original file (10534-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    We recommend that Applicant’s request for relief be denied. The charges were Article 86, Unauthorized Absence, Article 92, Dereliction in the Performance of Duties, and Article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman, ofSubj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFthe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Finally, Applicant claims that the Board’s findings were not supported by the evidence.