DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 1235-08
2 October 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 that your naval record be corrected to show you
were promoted from corporal (pay grade E-4) to sergeant (pay
grade E-5) with an effective date of 1 April 2005 or, if that
date is not approved, then 1 June 2005. As shown in the
attached correspondence with enclosure from Headquarters Marine
Corps (HQOMC) dated 4 August 2008, HOMC has issued you a
discharge certificate reflecting that your discharge from the
Marine Corps Reserve on 19 March 2006 was in the grade of
sergeant.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 2 October 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
correspondence cited above and the advisory opinion from HQMC
dated 28 April 2008, 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 in
concluding you have not established you should have been
promoted on either 1 April or 1 June 2005, but you should have
been promoted on 1 July 2005, before the date of your discharge
on 19 March 2006. You may request a promotion certificate from
the Mobilization Command, if you were not ina drilling unit on
1 July 2005, or from your unit if you were in one on that date.
In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that
effected by HOMC 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,
Sdearh
W. DEAN PF
Executive tor
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 | 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 | CY2007 | 10584-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2008. In this connection, the Board particularly noted that you were not selected when you received remedial consideration for promotion from the FY 2005 and 2006 Master Sergeant Selection Boards; and the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion dated 29 April 2008, except to note you actually had only one observed gunnery sergeant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01498-09
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...
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 | CY2009 | 09809-09
You further requested that these reports, as well as the report for 31 October 2007 to 30 June 2008, be modified by adding, to section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] meets Physical Evaluation criteria in MCO [Marine Corps Order] 6100.12, and is within standards.” Finally, you requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2010 Active Reserve Colonel Selection Board, and granting you special selection board consideration...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13802-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 10418-07
By enclosure (2), the Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) directed that a new panel of the Board consider Petitioner’s case, and that the panel’s recommendation be forwarded to him for review and final disposition. d. In one of Petitioner’s prior cases, docket number 6843-05, the Board addressed his contention that when the FY 2005 Master Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board considered him, he had only two observed fitness reports since his restoration to active duty in...