DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 6062-07
3 September 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 3 September 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 advisory
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 14 August
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.
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 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,
Executive Dil r
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3000 MARINE CORPS PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20350-3000
IN REPLY REFER To:
1070
JAM3
AUG 1 4 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
RECORDS
,Subj: ORRECTION IN THE CASR OF STAFF SERGEANT
Ref:
, ENLPROM
Enel: (1) co, 2D BN, RTR, MCRD/WRR, San Diego,
CA ltr 1400
S-1/LCD of 13 Sep 06
1. 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) .
2. Opinion. We recommend that Applicant’s request for relief
be denied. our analysis follows.
3. Background
a. On 17 August 2006,
Instructor, i
b. Onl September 2006, the Commanding Officer, 2d
Battalion (2dBn), Recruit Training Regiment (RTR), Marine Corps
Recruit Depot (MCRD), San Diego, California, imposed NJP upon
Applicant for violating Article 80 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (ucMg) by attempting to induce another drill
instructor to wrongfully speak to recruits and for two counts of
disobeying a lawful written order in violation of Article 92.
Applicant accepted NUP in lieu of trial by court-martial and was
found guilty by his Commanding Officer. Applicant received
forfeitures of $1232.00 pay per month for a period of two
months. Applicant did not appeal his NUP.
c. On 6 September 2006, the Commanding Officer, 2dBn, RTR,
MCRD, San Diego, informed the Applicant that he was r
ecommending
to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that his promot
ion be
gN THE CASE OF STAFF SERGEANT
eeisuc
revoked and that he be relieved for cause from his position ag
Senior Drill Instructor.
d. On 13 September 2006, Applicant’s Commanding Officer
submitted enclosure (1) to MMPR-2. Enclosure (1) is the
detailed report and recommendation supporting revocation of
Applicant's appointment. Subsequently, the Marine Corps
administratively deleted Applicant’s name from the FY 2006
Gunnery Sergeant Selection List.
¢. On 3 May 2007, the Commandant of the Marine Corps,
informed the Applicant that he was revoking his promotion to
Gunnery Sergeant.
4. Analysis
a. The Marine Corps’ removal of Applicant from the FY 2006
Gunnery Sergeant Selection List was in substantial compliance
with applicable regulations. Paragraph 1200.4 of the reference
requires Commanders to ensure that all enlisted Marines promoted
to the next higher grade meet the Marine Corps standards of
professionalism, personal performance, and leadership. This
will not be delivered if the Marine concerned has failed to
maintain the high standards of professional and personal
performance that led to selection.
b. Additionally, per paragraph 5200.1 of the reference,
when a Commanding Officer determines that a Marine previously
selected for promotion by an HOMC SNCO selection board is now
unqualified for promotion, he must immediately notify MMPR-2
that he intends to recommend delay or revocation of a Marine’s
certificate of appointment. Per paragraph 5200.3 of the
reference, the Commanding Officer must then forward to MMPR-2,
via the chain of command, a full, detailed report of the
circumstances within 30 days of submitting the advance
notification of intent to withhold or delete the Marine’s
selection. If the Commanding Officer recommends revocation of
the Marine’s appointment, he must submit a request for
revocation via the chain of command.
¢. Per paragraph 5200.3b of the reference, the Marine must
be afforded the opportunity to review the Commanding Officer’s
recommendation, to include all information used by the Commander
, and must be given the
In addition, the Marine must
, acknowledging that the
endorse any third party statements
statement is submitted with his knowledge. Upon receipt of the
detailed report, CMC may, inter alia, revoke the appointment and
remove the Marine’s name from the appropriate selection list,
per paragraph 5200.6 of the reference.
Applicant’s Commanding Officer f
of the reference.
On 2 October 2006, Applicant
submitted an appeal to CM stating that he accepted
responsibility for commit ing both counts of or
ders violation
but disputed his guilt ofithe a
ttempt charge. Applicant further
JP imposed was just, revocation of his
promotion was excessive punishment.
€. NJP serves as a valid basis to disqualify a Marine for
The evidence of Applicant’s
ary determination that
orps’ standards of
personal performance, and leadership.
applicant failed to meet the Marine c
professionalism,
ble regulations. Accordingly,
ce in revoking Applicant’s
y Law Branch at (703) 614-4250, if
G. L. SIMMONS
Head, Military Law Branch
Judge Advocate Division
By direction of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03119-01
1 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: SE OF STAFF SERGEAN Staff Sergeant 1. has been reviewed concerning his request for removal of the Administrative Remarks (1070) NAVMC 000714 and CMC letter of selection from the 2000 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, from his service records. 118(11) page 11 entry dated 1450/5 MMPR-2 dated 22 Aug 2000, revocation application with supporting documents MC0 authorizes commanders to make entries on page...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08059-01
He feels that since his command did not notify CMC to delay his promotion until after his name appeared on the MARADMIN for Staff Noncommissioned Officer promotions for November, he should have been promoted. Following the conviction, his commanding officer recommended revocation of his promotion to gunnery sergeant per reference (a). That same month, Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS CASE OF STAFF SERGEANT (BCNR) APPLICATION IN THE SMC Petitioner's command recommended that CMC...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00229-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 March 2001. 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 | CY2009 | 04984-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03999-10
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 8 December 2007 to 8 August 2008, a copy of which is at Tab A. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing all remaining references to his NJP of 7 August 2008, to include the following: {1) Unit Punishment Book entry (2) Second sentence,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00605-06
By correspondence dated 14 November 2003 (copy at Tab B), Petitioner was advised that his selection by the CY 2003 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board had been revoked for unspecified “unprofessional conduct and poor judgment” exhibiting failure to maintain the high standards expected of a Marine Corps staff noncommissioned officer.e. Enclosure (7) documents that a member of the Board’s staff contacted the HQMC Enlisted Promotion Section and was informed that had Petitioner’s selection by the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12589-09
e. In an advisory opinion dated 8 January 2010 from the Headquarters Marine Corps Military Law Branch, it was recommended that Petitioner’s request for removal of the derogatory material referencing the NJP be granted because it had been set aside. f. An advisory opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps Enlisted Promotion Section dated 9 March 2010 noted that the NUP had been set aside, but recommended that Petitioner’s request for reinstatement and removal of his revocation of selection...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 07469-00
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 29 November 2000 and 2 January 2001, copies of which are attached. 2 Subj: ~ GUNNERY SERGEANT U~IIIIhIUBCR f. Gunnery Sergean rovides a statement in support of his request for removal of’ ‘the page 11 entry. g. Gunnery Sergean rovides documentation, a copy of a personal award, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal he received to support his request for removal of the page 11 entry.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03147-11
Petitioner further requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 19 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab F. Finally, he requested setting aside the Commandant Of the Marine Corps (CMC)'s revocation dated 8 July 2008 of his selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 First Sergeant Selection Board and promoting him to first sergeant with the lineal precedence he would have had, but for the revocation. The PERB report at enclosure (2) stated that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7775 13
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...