DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No:- 3898-08
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, in effect, consideration by a special selection
board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Chief Warrant Officer
3 (CWO3) Selection Board, so that if you are selected, your CWO3
date of rank and effective date will be adjusted to reflect
selection by the FY 2007 CWO3 Selection Board, rather than FY
2008. You are not eligible for SSB consideration, as you have
been promoted to CWO3, therefore your application has been
treated as a request to adjust your CWO3 date of rank and
effective date to reflect selection by the FY 2007 CWO3
Selection Board.
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
advisory opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)
Counseling Section (MMOA-4) dated 7 August 2008 and the e-mails
(two) from the HQMC Officer Promotion Section (MMPR-1) dated 14
August 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 light of the statistical information
provided in the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 concerning the FY
2007 CWO3 Selection Board, the Board was unable to find it is
probable you would have been selected by that promotion board,
had your record properly reflected your professional military
education. 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,
leak
W. DEAN PFEVHF
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
MMOA-4
7 Bug 08
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Ref:
of 26 dun 08
Recommend disapproval oi mail
2. Per the reference, we revicwoR Me.» ct iti oggall eg
re “was in zone
for the FY07 Board and contends that not retetite is Warfighting PMI
certificate in hig OMPF impaired his competitiveness on that board.
On that particular board there were 10 eligible for promotion and
only 8 were promotedig a mem shows that he communicated with
the President of the FY "Board when he was below zone and
enclosed a letter from CCE/MCU that stated he had completed the
Warfighting PME and was thus PME complete. He does not show that he
presented this same information to the FY2007 Board.
tf
3. In our opinion, the fact that his Warfighting PME certificate
was not in his OMPF or on his MBS would show that he is not PME
complete and could cause a board to pass him over for selection.
‘ M-ontends that the Warfighting PME certificate was at
HOMC in 2005 because he submitted them to the FY06 Board.
Tnformation submitted to a board does not go into a Marines
Official Record ie coms to imply that it is the
responsibility re sobmit his certificates into his OMPF.
It is the responsibility of the Marine to review their MBS and
OMPF and ensure that all pertinent certificates or letters are
submitted.
wei si lure for selection on the FY07
CWO Board might well have been because the Board was unaware he
was PME complete. But there may well have cane reasons he
was not promoted and as already stated it Wélm ;
responsibility to make sure the Board was aware that ne was PMI
complete.
4. In summary ——i— ie
td
Subj: BCNR el bele
5, poc is LtCol Frances Poleto at (703) 784-9281.
Wd
J. F. WALLIS
Lieutenant Colonel, USMC
Counseling Section MMOA-4
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06620-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing his failure of selection before the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 Captain Selection Board; returning him to the Regular Marine Corps effective 1 November 1999; and changing the date of rank and effective date of his promotion to captain to reflect selection by the FY 1999 Captain Selection...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12160-09
The Board did not consider her request for remedial consideration, as she has been selected and promoted to. c. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be returned to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06730-11
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No. 6730-11 4 August 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj:
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 | CY2008 | 05058-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2008. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, except to note your request was not for remedial consideration for promotion to master sergeant, but adjusting the date of rank and effective date of your promotion to reflect selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Master Sergeant Selection...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08569-09
By enclosure (2), he amended his application, as it relates to the report for 1 May 2007 to 30 April 2008, to request that the report be modified, by removing section K (reviewing officer's marks and comments), rather than completely removed. The Board, consisting of Ms. LeBlanc and Messrs. Fales and Grover, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 August 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the...
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 | CY2006 | 07196-06
As reflected in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed removing the contested section K’s and the word quiet,” and HQMC has modified the report for 1 August 1999 to 29 February 2000 to show “CAPT” (captain) vice “MAJ” (major) in section A, item i.e (grade). If Petitioner is correct that he did not receive a copy of the report when it was completed, the Board finds this would not be a material error warranting relief, as...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03672-98
He stated that since his fitness reports as a lieutenant and captain were sufficiently strong to allow him to have been promoted to major, and since his major reports are “far more competitive, ”the probability of promotion to lieutenant colonel “would be high.” Regarding his fitness report for 15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986, he stated that although it is an “annual” report, it covers only three months, during which the actual observation was only four to six calendar days. In their...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08224-98
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. 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. Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the fitness report for the period 970125-970731 and...