ne €
We
es
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
gen
AY
- JSR
Docket No: 11045-07
15 May 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.
You requested removing the fitness report for 16 May to 18
October 1996 and the Commandant of the Marine Corps letter of
counseling dated 21 August 1997 with your acknowledgment and the
associated Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) routing sheet dated
9 March 1998.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 15 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
report of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),
dated 10 December 2007, and the HQMC advisory opinion dated 6
March 2008, copies of which are 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 report of the PERB
and the advisory opinion, except paragraph 4.a and the
statement, in paragraph 4.b, that you claim your nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) of 31 August 1996 should be removed. The Board
did not consider removing your NJP, as you did not specifically
request this. The Board recognized that even if the NUP were
not removed, the contested documents could properly be removed
on a finding of error or injustice in the NUP. However, the
Board made no such finding. The Board could not accept your
assertion that the NJP was awarded to appease sailors on the USS
TARAWA. Finally, the Board did not condone the submission of
the letter of counseling and routing sheet so long after the NJP
they address, but did not consider this lateness to invalidate
those documents. 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,
BERT fo
heting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10175-08
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. Regarding the recommendation, in paragraphs 4.b.ii and 5 of the JAM5 advisory opinion, to amend the commanding officer’s/RO’s letter of 4 May 2006 (among the ericlosures to the HQMC routing sheet dated 10 October 2006) by removing the words “for his civilian conviction,” the Board noted that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05821-01
(?O/ MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR (PERB) R - I USMC ._ (b) MC0 P1610.7D DD Form 149 of 3 May 01 w/Ch l-4 Per MC0 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 1. with three members present, Majo the fitness report for the period 970801 to 980519 (CH) was requested. Reference (a) requested an advisory opinion in the case...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04010-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 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 | CY2001 | 03811-01
If that action is not possible, then the petitioner (b) is the Reference \\ . " s the Reviewing Officer on those two reports, as he was Colonel that if Colone he would have so stated in his review. Further, we recommend that his request for a special selection board through BCNR be denied since he has not exhausted the appropriate administrative procedures for requesting a special selection board set forth in references (b) and (c) contact in this matter is Capt Head, Promotion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09077-07
By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05187-99
opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) dated 20 December copies of which are attached. to this Board, the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) at HQMC has removed this comment from your last The Board first considered your contentions of error concerning the NJP of 10 January 1996, specifically, that although the service record entry of 8 ,January 1996 shows that the advice 5 M.J. 238 (CMA 1977) was required by United States v. Booker, given, it does not state that this advice...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Nov 29 14_53_31 CST 2000
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 1999. In addition, the Board 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 warranting restoration of your drill instructor military occupational specialty (MOS) or your special duty assignment (SDA) pay. ...
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 | CY2007 | 04306-07
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed correcting the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17.a (“Commendatory”) from “No” to “Yes.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2008. The Board agreed with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding the correction of item 17.a of the fitness report at issue would not have appreciably enhanced...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06664-11
The Board, consisting of Ms. Aldrich and Messrs. Pfeiffer and Spain, reviewed Pétitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 8 September 2011, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") entry dated 26 October 2010. That any material or entries inconsistent with...