Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06399-07
Original file (06399-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


LCC
Docket No. 6399—07
27
May 08


         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 27 May 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 opinions furnished by CMC memorandums 1920 MMSR-3 of 16 May 2008 and 1050 MPO-40 -of 8 August 2008, a copy of each 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






Enclosures


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGIN!A
22 t 34-5103


                                   
IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                                   1920
                                                                                                   MMSR-3
                                                                                                  
16 May 08

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

Subj:    BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF ~
SUBJ:    REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION

Ref:     (a) MNER R/S 6399-07 of 6 May 2008
(b)      MCO P1900.16F

1.       Reference (a) requests an advisory opinion concerning former
request for full separations pay.

2.       Upon review of former Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), we note he was discharged on 15 December 2006 with a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of GHK1 and a narrative reason for separation of Involuntary Discharge (Substandard Performance) comment dated 29 January 2007 in former final fitness report for the period June 2006 through 15 December 2006 states that former “discharge was a result of his failure to maintain basic ht/wt/body fat requirements.” Paragraph 1.308 (a) (8) states that Marines are limited to half separation pay when they are separated for substandard performance of duty by reason of failure to perform to prescribed standards of weight. Former received half separations pay. Based on this information, we do not recommend that former receive full separations pay.

3.       Point of contact is Ms.




Head, Separation and
Retirement Branch
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps












DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103

                                                                                          IN REPLY REFER TO,
                                                                                                   1050 MPO-40
                                                                                                   AUG 0 8 2007



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

Subj:    BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

Ref:     (a) MMER Route sheet of 1 Aug 07
(b)      United States Code, Title 37, Chapter 9, Section 501 .b. 3

1.       Reference (a) is returned recommending disapproval of patents of 6.0 days of lost leave. Per reference (b), separation payments for unused accrued leave are limited to 60 days during a military career.

2.       POC is Major Paul T. Morgan, (CMC MPO-40) at DSN 278-9387, commercial (703) 784-9387.



Branch Head
Military Policy
Acting

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10334-05

    Original file (10334-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    They agreed with the reasoning of the Claims Appeal Board that “in the absence of proof that (you) spent the erroneous per-diem payments for their intended purpose, waiver of the remaining $17,351.26 is not appropriate.” Thus they found no error or injustice in the action to recoup the $17,351.26 in erroneous per-diem payments.Accordingly, your application has been denied. The activation orders authorized per diem; however, the Marine Corps cannot be liable for the erroneous actions of its...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02169-06

    Original file (02169-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. During that period, Oahu, Hawaii was authorized an overseas COLA and was a member without dependents and was residing in the barracks.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04704-08

    Original file (04704-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is enclosed, and your rebuttal thereto dated 29 July 2008. 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. As requested by the reference, we have audited your Career Retirement Credit Record (CRCR), enclosure (1), in order to establish your correct...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03620-09

    Original file (03620-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 7200 MPO-40 of 28 May 2009, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10421-07

    Original file (10421-07.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. In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps a copy of which is enclosed. 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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Oct 18 12_56_13 CDT 2000

    In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the HQMC Promotion Branch (MMPR) has commented to the effect that Petitioner’s implied request to remove his failures of selection has merit and warrants favorable action, since the GCM documentation was not removed until after he had failed by the FY 1999 CWO-3 Selection Board. Warrant Office~~ request the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) to remove his failures of selection for the FY97 and FY99 Chief Warrant Officer 3 Selection...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06715-07

    Original file (06715-07.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. In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is enclosed. 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 | CY2007 | 06911-07

    Original file (06911-07.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. Once a code is correctly assigned it is not routinely changed or upgraded as a result of events that occur after separation or based on merely on the passage of time.4 Enclosure (6) is returned for final actionHead, Performance Evaluation Review Branch Personnel Management Division By the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06703-07

    Original file (06703-07.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 Headquarters Marine Corps dated 9 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10787-07

    Original file (10787-07.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. In addition, it considered the enclosed advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 9 February 1987 and your response thereto. The reference requests an advisory opinion on Mr. petition to correct his record to show he received an honorable characterization of service.