Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06325-08
Original file (06325-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

JSR
Docket No: 6325-08
15 January 2009

 

This ig 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 documentation of your relief from
recruiting duty for the good of the service and the fitness
reports for 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 and 1 April to 25 May
2006. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC)
has directed removing both contested fitness reports.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 15 January 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. In addition, the Board considered the
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board dated 17 June 2008, the e-mail from the
HQOMC Performance Evaluation Review Branch dated 15 August 2008,
and the advisory opinions from the Marine Corps Recruiting
Command (MCRC), dated 5 August and 3 September 2008, and the

HOMC Enlisted Assignments Branch (MMEA) dated 4 November 2008,
copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your
e-mail of 10 September 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 opinion
from MMEA in concluding the relief for the good of the service
documentation should stand. In this regard, the Board noted
that the recommendation, in the MCRC advisory opinion dated 3
September 2008, to remove this documentation gave no basis for
concurring with your request. The Board found the documentation
was sufficient to explain the basis for your relief, without all
the documents originally enclosed with your commanding officer's
letter of 19 January 2006 recommending your relief for cause.

In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that
effected by CMC 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,

\y ]
We i

DEAN P
Executive Di

  
  

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05473-00

    Original file (05473-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    (6), the M arine Corps Recruiting Command ’s request to remove his page 11 entry should be MOS , and 2 In correspondence attached as enclosure (7), the HQMC Enlisted Assignment Branch (MI&A) has also commented to the effect that Petitioner ’s request to remove his page 11 entry should be approved, but his requests concerning his RFC should be denied. Point of contact is M ecommended that the Board equest for removal of the VMC 118(11), page 11 .entry dated Acting Head, Field Support...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08183-00

    Original file (08183-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request to change your sergeant date of rank to 9 October 1998 was not considered, as the Marine Corps Total Force System already reflects that date. 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. However, they sa 9 his date of rank is MCRC; that MCRC set his date of rank as 1 Jan 95; and that unless BCNR rules otherwise, MMPR-2...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06191-01

    Original file (06191-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 the fitness report for 15 March to 14 August 2000, a copy of which is at enclosure (1). The Board, consisting of Messrs. Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 15 August 2001, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00379-02

    Original file (00379-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removal of your fitness reports for 1 March to 28 August 1998 and 1 October to 14 November 1998, as well as documentation of your relief for the good of the service from recruiting duty. ” CMC also “Recruited SNM was put on bed rest/no duty due to pregnancy problems/back problems. (2), the approval authority (GOS) relief from recruiting duty, has supports her request for Additionally, enclosure Based upon this review, 2. following errors require corrective action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09809-09

    Original file (09809-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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 | CY2008 | 10175-08

    Original file (10175-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 07838-10

    Original file (07838-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    JAMS stated that the NUP “stemmed from [Petitioner’s] failure to report a civilian DUI arrest,” however, the UPB entry actually says he was punished “for failing to notify his command of his DUI conviction [emphasis added] .” JAM5 noted that “the requirement to report the conviction (rather than the arrest) is lawful.” d. Enclosure (4) explains that PERB directed removing the contested fitness report in light of enclosure (3). e. In enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 03925-04

    Original file (03925-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 the applicable naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the fitness reports for 1 January to 1 April 2002, 2 April to 22 June 2002, 23 June to31 December 2002, 1 January to 30 June 2003, and 1 July to26 August 2003. We do not, however, recommend that his voided MOS 8411 be reinstated and the recoupment of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07739-08

    Original file (07739-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also initially requested modifying the reports for 13 October 1998 to 23 April 1999 and 1 January to 15 June 2007, but you telephonically indicated on 18 July 2008 that you were satisfied with complete removal of these reports, which has been directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2008. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...