DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 6632-08
28 August 2008
United States Code, section 1552. you requested removal of your
relief for cause (RFC) from Marine Security Guard duty effected
on 3 April 2007 and approved on 10 April 2007.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 28 August 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 dated
31 July 2008 with enclosure, a copy of which is attached, and
your letter dated 25 August 2008.
error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
The Board was unable to find the contested RFC was in reprisal
for your protected communication of 8 March 2007 with your
Congressman concerning your nonjudicial punishment (NUP) of 6
March 2007; nor could it find your first sergeant told you that
)
B/
if you did not appeal the NJP, which you did not appeal, you
would receive no RFC. Finally, the Board found you had no right
under Battalion Order 1300.24 to notice or an opportunity to
make a statement to the contested RFC before it was effected,
nor did you have a right to make a statement before the RFC was
filed in your record, as you had a right to make a statement in
connection with the NUP proceedings on which it was based; and
you do not dispute the NUP.
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,
\aNon.
W. DEAN PF F
Executive Di
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04010-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 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 | CY2008 | 01426-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 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 | CY2010 | 07838-10
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 | CY2014 | NR0776 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 June 2014. 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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion in finding your RFC should not be set aside,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11045-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2008. The Board did not consider removing your NJP, as you did not specifically request this. 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 | 07714-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2008. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 6 August 2008, a copy of which is attached, and your letter of 14 August 2008 with enclosure. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3737 13
You requested removal of a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) held on 28 May 2008, retirement in the rank of commander (pay grade 0o- '5), and removal of two fitness reports for 5 October 2006 to 18 April 2007, and for 17 August 2007 to 8 January 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 July 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03156-01
You also made new requests to remove your relief for cause from recruiting duty, which was requested on 5 April 1999; your nonjudicial punishment of 29 March 1999; and your service record page 11 counseling entries dated 17 and 24 February 1999. We are asked to provide an advisory opinion on Petitioner's request for the removal from his Service Record Book (SRB) and his official military personnel file (OMPF) of all references to his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 29 March 1999 and...
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 | 09279-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2008. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 26 November 2007, a copy of which is attached. 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.