DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON BC 20370-5100
BIG
Docket No: 8727-08
25 February 2010
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.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed removal of your fitness report for 29 May 1993 to 19
April 1994, and found that you are entitled to the third award
of the Good Conduct Medal.
zB three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 25 February 2010. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of
thig 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 (PERB), dated 11 February
2009, the advisory opinion from the HOMC Enlisted Promotion
Section (MMPR-2), dated 10 June 2009, and the advisory opinion
from the HOMC Military Awards Branch (MMMA~3), dated 4 January
2010, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered
the electronic mail (e-mail) from Master Gunnery Sergeant
(MGySgt) D---, United States Marine Corps (USMC) (Retired),
dated 18 February 2009, the e-mail from MGySgt A---, USMC.
(Retired), dated 26 February 2009, and your rebuttal letter
dated 11 March 2009 with enclosures.
Bfter 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
report of the PERB, and the advisory opinions from MMPR-2 and
MMMA-3, Accordingly, 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.
Tt 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,
Qua! :
W. DEAN PHEIFFE
Executive Digector
Enclosures
Copy te:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07361-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 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 | CY2007 | 09077-07
By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...
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 | CY2009 | 09583-09
You requested modifying the fitness report for 8 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) marks and comments). 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09809-09
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 | CY2008 | 02949-08
Documenta of your applicati support thereof, regulations and p report of the HQM dated 21 March 20 Enlisted Promotio gy the contested fitness report for mil.e (“Grade”), “20031001 [1 October in executive session, considered your C Performance Evaluation Review Board n Section (MMPR-2), dated 27 June 2008 April 2007 by changing the entry in section A, ignment”) from “Supply Chief” to “Supply aArters Marine Corps (HQMC) has further A of the report by entering “GYSGT [gunnery 2003)" in ate of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02684-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2009. 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 | CY2002 | 06881-99
They were unable to find how, if at all, his report influenced your nonjudicial punishment or your removal from the 1998 staff sergeant selection list, nor could they find how he changed his opinions following the review of his report by the CO. We reviewed Sergeant documents concerning his Administrative Remarks page 11 entries dated 980804 and 981125, Offenses and Punishment page 12 entry dated 990311 and CMC letter 1450/3 MMPR-2 dated 2. In view of the above, it is recommended...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06987-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 2009. 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 | CY2013 | NR8532 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 2014. in addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 October 2013, the e- Mail from HQMC dated 19 November 2013, and the advisory opinions from HOMC dated 25 March 2014 with enclosure and 8 May 2014, copies of which are attached, - After careful and conscientious...