DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51900
TSR
Docket No. 10174-07
22 February 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction Ol your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.
You requested, in effect, that you be promoted to gunnery
sergeant, pursuant to your selection by the Fiscal Year (FY)
2006 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board. You also impliedly
requested removing from your record any documentation of the
delay of your promotion and removal from the FY 2006 Guiine: y
Sergeant Selection List.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 22 Feburary 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
19 December 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 you were not given 10 days to reply
to your commander’s comments concerning the proposed revocation
of your selection for promotion or that your ability to respond
effectively was prejudiced in any way. Although you received no
disciplinary action and the result of your administrative
separation board proceedings was that you were retained, the
Board was unable to accept your assertion that you “have never
admitted to behaving inappropriately...” In this regard, the
Board particularly noted that at page 26 of enclosure (9) to
your application (transcript of administrative separation board
proceedings), you do admit to what the Board felt could fairly
be described as inappropriate sexual contact with the spouse of
another Marine, which was the basis for the revocation of your
selection.
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,
este
Executive Diredt
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10207-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. 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 | 06062-07
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 | CY2008 | 06748-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case (docket number 2803-07), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05700-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 2011. 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 | CY2010 | 11168-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case (docket number 4974-10), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, the Board particularly noted the figures provided in paragraph 3 of the advisory opinion, as well as the uncontested derogatory service record page 11 entries dated 14 November 1993 and 21 March, 24 March and 15 November...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00883-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 2010. 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 | CY2008 | 09296-08
You also impliedly requested reconsideration of your previous request to adjust your gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-7) date of rank and effective date to reflect selection by the Calendar Year (CY) 2001 or 2002 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, rather than CY 2003. While the Board did consider your having been selected for promotion to master sergeant the first time you were considered with a corrected record to be new and material evidence in support of backdating your promotion to gunnery...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03855-08
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 | CY2010 | 00446-10
You finally impliedly requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") counseling entry dated 25 January 2008. 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. Further, the (enclosure Board was unable to find your promotion would not have been delayed, had the results of the inspection, which was conducted on...
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...