Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04942-07
Original file (04942-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 BJG
 Docket No:4942-07
 18 January 2008




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 17 January 2008. 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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 25 May 2007, and the advisory opinions from the HQMC Military Law Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM7), dated 16 February and 11 September 2007, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letters dated 22 and 23 June 2007 and 28 September 2007, each with enclosures.
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 report of the PERB regarding the contested fitness report. The Board noted that if you are correct you should have received a “CD” (change of duty) fitness report when your billet changed from warehouse chief to shipping/receiving chief, this would not support removing the report at issue outright, but reaccomplishing it with a later beginning date. Finally, the Board was unable to find the contested report was used as a disciplinary tool or a counseling document.





Concerning the contested nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 8 June 2003, the Board was unable to find the investigation established you were not guilty of the offenses for which you were punished. The Board was likewise unable to find the officer who imposed the NJP was not in your chain of command. Although the Navy Marine Corps (NAVMAC) 10132 documenting the NJP does not show your signature acknowledging you were advised of your rights under Article 31, Uniform Code of Military Justice or your right to demand trial by court-martial, or a signature of your commanding officer acknowledging you were so advised, this did not persuade the Board you were not afforded these rights. Finally, you may submit to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service your objection that the forfeiture amount is not expressed in whole dollar amounts.
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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02949-08

    Original file (02949-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documenta of your applicati support thereof, regulations and p report of the HQM dated 21 March 20 Enlisted Promotio gy the contested fitness report for mil.e (“Grade”), “20031001 [1 October in executive session, considered your C Performance Evaluation Review Board n Section (MMPR-2), dated 27 June 2008 April 2007 by changing the entry in section A, ignment”) from “Supply Chief” to “Supply aArters Marine Corps (HQMC) has further A of the report by entering “GYSGT [gunnery 2003)" in ate of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01480-07

    Original file (01480-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1480-079 March 2007This 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) hasdirected removing the contested fitness report for3 October 2003 to 31 March 2004; and Headquarters Marine Corps(HQMC) has directed modifying the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11045-07

    Original file (11045-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2008. The Board did not consider removing your NJP, as you did not specifically request this. 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 | CY2006 | 06678-06

    Original file (06678-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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.You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Dec 28 08_34_06 CST 2000

    Original file (Document scanned on Thu Dec 28 08_34_06 CST 2000.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Petitioner’s application which requests that the entry reflecting his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 30 August 1996 be removed from his official records. He received two adverse fitness reports during this period, from two different Reporting Seniors and Reviewing Officers. Petitioner’s Regimental Commander also Petitioner was found guilty of that offense b. Petitioner provides no basis for removal of the record of NJP.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06056-02

    Original file (06056-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The petitioner has provided nothing to support his claim of injustice or that he was denied an opportunity to appeal the NJP (i.e., NJP occurred and was correctly recorded via the performance evaluation system. However, Petitioner did not appeal his punishment and does not claim that he was denied the right to do so. it is the NJP However, offenses.- C .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03855-08

    Original file (03855-08.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 September 2008. The Board found no requirement for a page 11 entry, regarding your promotion revocation, in MCO P1400.32C, the applicable version of the Enlisted Promotions Manual (this requirement appears in paragraph 1204.5 of MCO P1400.32D, dated 11 May 2006). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00836-02

    Original file (00836-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Not withstanding the requirement to report the petitioner's unfortunate failing, of his overall performance and with a most positive "word picture" in Section I. nothing in this process was a quick the report appears to be a fair evaluation Contrary to the Both officers and failing to properly execute that bf enclosure (6) to reference (a), In paragraph seven I MEF clearly holds the petitioner responsible toward C . The petitioner is correct that paragraph 5005 of reference (a) requires the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5059 13

    Original file (NR5059 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By letter of 11 April 2013, you requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 15 September 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 2013. 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 | CY2002 | 05075-02

    Original file (05075-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Petitioner's NJP. Based on the documentary evidence "that for good consideration and after Similarly, Petitioner was informed of his right to demand the NJP proceeding was conducted rec'eived all the rights to which he was Petitioner was advised of his right to counsel provided by Petitioner, properly and Petitioner entitled at NJP. Petitioner understanding his rights at NJP is the fact Petitioner also elected to have a s in fact p NJP, a had a right to submit written matters for...