Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08315-08
Original file (08315-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

LCC
Docket No. 8315-08
14 Oct 08

 

Dear iii game,

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

14 October 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 furnished by CMC memorandum 1400/3
MMPR-2 of 18 September 2008, a copy of which is attached.

 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record,
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,

W. DEAN AX
Executive Direst

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 1 8 2008

 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

 

Subj: ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF 

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07636-08

    Original file (07636-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 2008. 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. 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 | 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 | 00042-07

    Original file (00042-07.rtf) 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. 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

    Original file (01607-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2007 | 06062-07

    Original file (06062-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | 09101-06

    Original file (09101-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2008 | 08782-08

    Original file (08782-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, remedial consideration for promotion from the Fiscal Year 2006 Marine Corps Reserve Staff Sergeant Selection Board. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01685-06

    Original file (01685-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the alternative, you now request new enlisted remedial selection boards (ERSB’s) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1999, 2000 and 2001 master sergeant and first sergeant selection boards.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. The Board found the ~Th’IPR-2 advisory opinion dated 2 August 2006 was correct as to the number of Marines with whom you were compared, despite the indications, in the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10418-07

    Original file (10418-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By enclosure (2), the Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) directed that a new panel of the Board consider Petitioner’s case, and that the panel’s recommendation be forwarded to him for review and final disposition. d. In one of Petitioner’s prior cases, docket number 6843-05, the Board addressed his contention that when the FY 2005 Master Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board considered him, he had only two observed fitness reports since his restoration to active duty in...