Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05058-08
Original file (05058-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JSR
Docket No: 5058-08
11 September 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 11 September 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 Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) dated

23 June 2008 and the memorandum for record dated 19 August 2008,
copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 5 August

2008 with enclosures.

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,
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 Board, rather

than FY 2008.

The Board noted your Master Brief Sheet (MBS) for the FY 2007
Master Sergeant Selection Board (convened on 17 October 2006)
did reflect, as the advisory opinion stated, two gunnery
sergeant fitness reports with cumulative relative values below
86.66: 15 March to 30 June 2005 (82.80) and 30 September to 15
November 2005 (86.02). The Board further noted that according
to the correspondence of 18 March 2008 from the HQMC Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), the fitness report whose section
K (reviewing officer marks and comments) PERB directed removing
was for 4 February to 23 April 2004 (GC (grade change)), a
report not listed on the MBS of 5 November 2007 you provided,
rather than for 3 September 2003 to 9 April 2004 (CH (change of
reporting senior)), the report from which you wanted the section
K removed. The memorandum for the record verifies that the
report you wanted corrected is the one that actually was
corrected. Finally, as a related matter, the Board particularly
noted that your fitness report record was uncorrected when you
were considered and selected by the FY 2008 Master Sergeant
Selection Board, convened on 16 October 2007.

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,

GS et

ROBERT D
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10212-07

    Original file (10212-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is presumed you desire removing that failure of selection as well.Concerning the report for 1 August to 1 November 1999, you requested removing from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) comments) the sentences “He has valuable experience from prior MOS~ [military occupational specialty] billets that he needs to apply towards his current MOS.” and “His ground duties managerial/leadership aggressiveness needs to improve.” it is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CNC) has...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03147-11

    Original file (03147-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07403-08

    Original file (07403-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 July 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 material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03139-06

    Original file (03139-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, on the basis that your record, as it was presented to that promotion board, included the contested original report, it did not include the revised report, and you allege it reflected identical RO marks and comments in the fitness reports for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 and 1 July to 20 December 2004. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06554-07

    Original file (06554-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    That board considered Petitioner for promotion, but did not select him.d. Based on the findings and action of the PERB, the Board concludes that the marginal fitness reports should not have been part of Petitioner’s naval record when he was considered for promotion in 2006.Whether Petitioner would have been selected for promotion in 2006 or not (without the marginal fitness reports) cannot be known and is largely a matter of conjecture. Moreover, when asked to provide substantive comments...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7775 13

    Original file (NR7775 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was then selected by the FY 2012 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, convened on 17 April 2012, and he was promoted to gunnery sergeant with a date of rank and effective date of 1 December 2012. d. Enclosure (4) shows that the in zone percentage selected for the FY 2006 Staff Sergeant Selection Board was 62.2. e. Enclosure (5) reflects that the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board directed removing Petitioner's fitness report for 1 April to 2 November 2006, which documented the later...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04306-07

    Original file (04306-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 08458-10

    Original file (08458-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested modification of the report for 26 July 2006 to 28 February 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2010. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00356-08

    Original file (00356-08.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    It is requested that this Board be furnished a copy of any correspondence relating to the enclosure; and that this letter and a copy of the enclosure be returned to the Board, together with any documentary material directed to be removed.Bydirection DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2NAVYANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100JSR Docket No. As indicated in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed all the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01582-11

    Original file (01582-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No: 1582-11 10 March 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Tes Secretary of the Navy ij REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: fa) Title 10 U.S.C. 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...