DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 4433-08
16 April 2009
This is in reference to your three applications, two dated
27 December 2007 and one dated 22 February 2008, for correction
of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of
the United States Code, section 1552.
You are seeking reconsideration of your previous application,
docket number 7865-05, to remove the fitness report for 1 March
to 30 June 2005 and the service record page ll.c
(“Administrative Remarks (1070)") entry dated 20 April 2005,
denied on 18 May 2006. You also submit a new application for
restoration to the Fiscal Year 2005 Enlisted to Warrant Officer
Selection List.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 16 April 2009. 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, and your prior case file. In
addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions from the
Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Manpower Information
Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division
(MIO), dated 16 April 2008 with enclosure, and the HQMC Military
Law Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM3), dated 28 April 2008,
and the report of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board iPERB)
dated 29 May 2008, copies of which are attached. The Board also
considered your rebuttal letter dated 13 August 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. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions
from MIO and JAM3 and the report of the PERB. 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,
Lue Pragd
W. DEAN P TE
Executive Dj tor
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09088-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 January 2009. 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 | CY2008 | 03840-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 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. 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 | 00311-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 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. 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 | 02949-08
Documenta of your applicati support thereof, regulations and p report of the HQM dated 21 March 20 Enlisted Promotio gy the contested fitness report for mil.e (“Grade”), “20031001 [1 October in executive session, considered your C Performance Evaluation Review Board n Section (MMPR-2), dated 27 June 2008 April 2007 by changing the entry in section A, ignment”) from “Supply Chief” to “Supply aArters Marine Corps (HQMC) has further A of the report by entering “GYSGT [gunnery 2003)" in ate of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08054-08
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing the nonjudicial punishment (NUP) of 21 November 2007, all material referencing charges, and the punishment imposed. In the enclosed advisory opinion dated 1 April 2009, the Headquarters Marine Corps Manpower Information, Manpower Management Information System Division (MIO) recommended...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01672-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 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. 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 03844-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2008. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 April 2007 and 11 March 2008, and the advisory opinion from the HOMC Military Law Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM3), dated 4 September 2007, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05347-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 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. 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 | 07980-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your naval record will be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 16 January 2006 20050101 to 20051231 (AN) 2. By direction DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 1070 MIO SEP 8...