Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05759-07
Original file (05759-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


LCC
Docket No. 5759-07
11 Dec 07


         Dear



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 10 December 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 MMPR-2 of 30 October 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,


                                                                                 W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                                                                 Executive Director


Enclosure


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MANPOWER AND
RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
HARRY LEE HALL, 17 LEJELJNE ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-51 04


        
                           IN REPLY REFER TO:
         14 00/3
         MMPR-2
         30 OCT 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj

Ref: (a) BCNR Docket Number 5759-07 of 4 Oct 07
(b)      NAVMC 118(5) from SNM’s service record book
(c)      MCO P1400.29 (ENLPROMMAN)

1.       Per reference (a) , 11 ‘*11I~ asserts he should have been promoted to the rank of staff sergeant based on passing the general military subjects test (GMST) and the technical test (TT)

2.       Reference (b) verifies . j1P1U.....J1,~ passed the general military subjects test (GMST) and technical test (TT) on 9 November 1953. Paragraph 3010.3a of reference (c) states the following must be achieved prior to promotion to staff sergeant.

(1)      Complete the minimum service in grade requirement as established by the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
(2)      Pass an appropriate GMST.
(3)      Have a composite score equal to or above the minimum established for his occupational field.
(4)      Be otherwise qualified as determined by his commander.

3.       Based on the information above, passing the GMST is only one of the qualifying factors for a Marine to be promoted to the rank of staff sergeant. Though record indicates he met the time in grade requirement and passed the GMST, there is no indication that he met the composite score requirements. Furthermore, reference (b) also verifies that became qualified for promotion to staff sergeant on 28 December 1954. He was released from active duty on 29 July 1954 and the promotion period in which he qualifies for promotion was after his release from active duty.

4.       Based on the foregoing, it is recommended r ecord remain unchanged.

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05874-07

    Original file (05874-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1400/3 MMPR-2 of 13 August 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03939-01

    Original file (03939-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, considered your application on 14 May 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Consequently, on the applicant to when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is demonstrate the existence of probable material error or upon submission of new and material In this regard, it is important ili_justice. , a former...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00186-01

    Original file (00186-01.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. for promotion but he was not awarded the promotion. He states that he passed a quests that his rank of lance corporal be "GMST" test A review of ‘GMST test" for promotion to corporal.

  • 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00540

    Original file (BC-2013-00540.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00540 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Fitness Assessment (FA) scores, dated 16 Jun 10, 23 Sep 10, 17 Dec 10, 25 Mar 11, 3 Jul 12, and 1 Oct 12, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). The applicant completed 36 sit-ups; however, the passing minimum score for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04345

    Original file (BC 2013 04345.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the demotion action and restore his rank to Technical Sergeant. Therefore, in view of the fact that we have determined the evidence is sufficient to conclude there was a causal nexus between the medical condition for which the applicant received a disability discharged and his ability to attain passing scores on his FAs, we also believe it is reasonable to conclude...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00433-07

    Original file (00433-07.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by MC memorandum 1400/3 MMPR-2, 13 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10290-08

    Original file (10290-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The front page of his fitness report for 18 March to 25 July 2008, a copy of which is at Tab B, verifies he had a first class PFT score of 205. d. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps Enlisted Promotion Section commented to the effect Petitioner’s request should be denied, as he “chose not to take his PFT making him unqualified for extension or reenlistment.” e. Enclosure (3) is Petitioner’s reply to enclosure (2), detailing the circumstances that prevented him from taking...

  • 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 | 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...