DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS.
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No. 07636-08
22 September 2008
Dear Re,
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
Sitting in executive session, considered your application on
22 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. The Board considered
the advisory opinion furnished by the HQMC memo 1400/3 MMPR-2 of
8 Sept 08, a copy of which is 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
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments
contained in the advisory opinion. 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 also 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,
Sea
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Dir
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
HARRY LEE HALL, 17 LEJEUNE ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5104
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1400/3
MMPR-2
SEP 08 2008
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Ref: (a) BCNR Docket Number 07636-08 of 19 Aug 08
(b) MCO P1400.32D, ENLPROMMAN
1. Per reference (2), —/Z—Z-/-/7_/__ i rayg@eiirmeyp. ve cuests
backdate/remedial consideration for promotion to gunnery sergeant by
the FY 2007 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board.
2. By Ree own admission, he did not properly
view his record until after the adjourning of the FY 2007 Gunnery
Sergeant Selection Board. A review of the selection board records
indicates O—————M I was properly considered but not
selected by the FY 2007 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board. Per
paragraph 3602.3 of reference (b), due diligence requires that a
Marine identify errors, discrepancies or an injustice in his or her
record in a timely manner and initiate appropriate corrective action.
Accordingly, a Marine’s request for remedial consideration must detail
the steps taken to ensure the completeness and accuracy of his or her
official record prior to the convening of the selection board that
considered, but did not select, the Marine. Per paragraph 3602.51 of
reference (b), when a Marine fails to demonstrate due diligence in the
correction of errors or injustices in the record, or in the submission
of a request for remedial promotion consideration, there is no basis
for granting remedial consideration. Research shows that ye
appeaiip 61.6 not take formal action to correct his record until
after the adjourning of the FY 2007 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board.
3. Based on the foregoing, it is the recommendation of this office
that smal aisnaRaatiaeis record remain unchanged at this time.
R. W. fRETLLY
Major, U.S. Mdrine Corps
Head, Enlisted Promotion Section
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06554-07
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 | CY2008 | 08315-08
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 furnished by CMC memorandum 1400/3 MMPR-2 of 18 September 2008, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00042-07
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. Per reference (a) XXXXX , requests backdate/remedial consideration for promotion to gunnery sergeant by the FY 2004 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board due to having an inaccurate fitness report removed from his record.2. Paragraph 3602.51 of reference (b) states, when a Marine fails to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01607-07
On April 15, 2005, Petitioner, through counsel, submitted an application to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) seeking removal of the January 1, 2001 to July 7,2Docket No. 01607-072001 fitness report, removal of naval records pertaining to the NJP and a remedial promotion board See enclosure (4)g. Petitioner’s request was bifurcated. Here, Petitioner did not take any action to have his fitness report removed until 15 April 2005, well after the dates of the Selection Boards...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7775 13
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 | CY2008 | 10290-08
The front page of his fitness report for 18 March to 25 July 2008, a copy of which is at Tab B, verifies he had a first class PFT score of 205. d. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps Enlisted Promotion Section commented to the effect Petitioner’s request should be denied, as he “chose not to take his PFT making him unqualified for extension or reenlistment.” e. Enclosure (3) is Petitioner’s reply to enclosure (2), detailing the circumstances that prevented him from taking...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09101-06
9101-06 11 Jan 07This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 Usc 1552.A three—member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 January 2007. 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. A review of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00413-09
Copies of the ‘PERB memorandum directing that action and the two removed reports are at enclosure (2). He was selected by the FY 2008 Staff Sergeant Selection Board, the first board to consider him without the contested fitness reports, and promoted with a date of rank and effective date of 1 October 2008. d. In the advisory opinions at enclosure (3), MMPR-2, the HOMC Enlisted Promotion Section, recommends that relief be denied, as Petitioner did not exercise due diligence, and even his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06062-07
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 14 August 2007, a copy of which is attached. You requested an advisory opinion on the revocation of Staff Sergeant Valdez’s (hereinafter “Applicant”) appointment to the grade of Gunnery Sergeant and the removal of a charge he received at Battalion level Non-Judicial Punishment (NUP) . On 3 May 2007, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, informed the Applicant that he was revoking his promotion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 00698-04
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 May 2004. 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. Per reference (a), Gunnery Sergeant requests promotion to the rank of master sergeant.2.