DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 10986-08
21 November 2008
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 20 November 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
30 October 2006 witn enclosure, a copy of which is attached.
The Board also considered your counsel's rebuttal letter dated 4
July 2007.
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,
noting that the United States Supreme Court has denied writs of
certiorari in the cases of SQRNRBwinesmennE nate (473 F.3d
1356 (Fed.Cir. 2007), certiorari denied 128 S.Ct. 66 (2007)),
an deggie 58 F.3d 1372 (Fed.Cir. 2006),
certiorari denied 128 S.Ct. 42 (2007)). The Board did not
condone the failure to meet applicable time limits, but found it
was a harmless error, in that you would have been removed from
the promotion list in any event. Concerning the statement, in
paragraph 2.a of the advisory opinion, that the Board “does not
have the authority to effectuate promotions,” the Board noted
that on the basis of a Board finding of error or injustice in
the promotion process, those who have the authority to do so may
effectuate promotion as a remedial action. However, the Board
found no material error or injustice warranting promotion or any
other relief in your case. 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,
Wea
W. DEAN F F
Executive Oo
Enclosure
Copy TOs
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00261
Issues, as submitted TO THE HONORABLE REVIEW BOARD HEREIN:Comes now, (J_ G_ M_), Applicant (hereinafter known as Applicant), Pro-Se, file this, his, APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE/DISMISSAL FROM THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, APPLICANT'S BRIEF, Pursuant TITLE 10 UNITED STATES CODE § 1553, and in support therefore, would very respectfully show unto this Honorable Board as follows: PROCEDURAL HISTORY Applicant has not perfected and effected an Appeal, this is the Applicant's instant...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-083
Therefore, the applicant’s record should be corrected by removing the disputed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was selected for promotion to LCDR by the promotion year (PY) 2011 Reserve LCDR selection board, which convened on August 16, 2010, now asks the Board to backdate his date of rank to lieutenant commander (LCDR) by one promotion year (PY 2010) because his record was prejudiced by the erroneous OER when it was reviewed by the PY 2010 selection board. 2009-071,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06966-07
You requested an advisory opinion ~ (hereinafter “Applicant”) application, docket #06966-07, Lu request removal of the nonjudicial punishment (NJP~ he received on 16 June 2005 from his record, and upgrade his reenlistment code.2. Applicant’s NJP and reenlistment code were in accordance with applicable regulations. No corrective action is warranted in this case because Applicant fails to demonstrate by substantial evidence that his NJP and his reenlistment code were in error or an injustice.6.
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 | CY2007 | 10580-07
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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10084-06
The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 15 December 2006 and 4 July 2007, each with enclosure. The Board considered the error, if any, in having allowed the FY 2007 Line Captain Selection Board to review your letter to the promotion board after the convening date was harmless as it was in your favor. 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 08604-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 14 May 2009. The Board found it unobjectionable that the report ending 28 December 2007 referred to your less favorable promotion recommendation in the immediately preceding report from the same reporting senior, whose removal the Board did not find warranted, Since the Board found no material defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to grant you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00587-09
™ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-~- 311) dated 26 February 2009, 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 | CY2008 | 03855-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 2008. The Board found no requirement for a page 11 entry, regarding your promotion revocation, in MCO P1400.32C, the applicable version of the Enlisted Promotions Manual (this requirement appears in paragraph 1204.5 of MCO P1400.32D, dated 11 May 2006). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...