DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .
JSR
Docket No. 12000-08
1 July 2009
This is in reference to your application dated 17 November 2008,
seeking reconsideration of your previous application for
correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of
title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. Your previous
case, docket number 00727-08, was denied on 23 October 2008.
You have again requested that your naval record be corrected to
show you accepted your commission in the Marine Corps Reserve on
4 December 2005, vice 15 June 2007; and change your captain date
of rank from 1 February 2003 to 1 April 2001. You have added a
new request for consideration by a special selection board
(SSB). Because you have been selected by the Fiscal Year 2010
Reserve Major Selection Board, you are no longer eligible for
SSB consideration.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on
29 January 2009 and completed its deliberations on 1 July 2009.
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, the
Board's file on your prior case, your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by Headquarters
Marine Corps dated 22 January 2009 and 26 February 2009 with
enclosures, copies of which are 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
dated 26 February 2009. In this regard, the Board noted that
the favorable advisory opinion dated 22 January 2009 did not
acknowledge the information reflected in enclosures (2), (3),
(4) and (9) of the advisory opinion dated 26 February 2009. In
view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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,
Loe Ge LY
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Direc
5
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL RD.
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
CMT
dA 2 2° 20106
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
sub} * RESERVE AFFAIRS DIVISION ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR
APPLICATION; CASE Og
) DD Form 149 dtd 17 Nov 2008
) BCNR request for advisory opinion of Jan 13, 2009
) Title 10 United States Code
) SECNAVINST 1420.1B
} MCO P1IOO1R.1d
)} MCO P1080.20
Encl: (1) CMT itr and address label t
1. Per references (a) and (b), we have reviewed the petitioner’s
request for the adjustment of his record to reflect that he was
released from active duty on 3 Dec 2005 and began his reserve
duty on the same date as well as the request that his date of
rank remain i Apr 2001.
2, The petitioner provided new documentary evidence to
substantiate his claim that he requested a reserve commission
upon his release from active duty. As such, we recommend the
petitioner’s requests in regard to his date of rank and lineal
control number be granted.
3. Reserve Affairs takes no official position on the
petitioner's request for a remedial promotion board. Reserve
Affairs reiterates (as previously stated in the advisory opinion
dated 16 May 2006) that the petitioner’’s request for a remedial
promotion board may not be in his best interest.
Subj: RESERVE AFFAIRS DIVISION ADVISORY OPIN]
APPLICATION; CASE OF @ ;
4, Point of contact at Reserve
commercias
By direction
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08063-06
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing his failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 and 1995 Reserve Major Selection Boards, so he will be eligible for current reappointment as. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Cooper, McBride and Schultz, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 November 2006, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03139-06
You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, on the basis that your record, as it was presented to that promotion board, included the contested original report, it did not include the revised report, and you allege it reflected identical RO marks and comments in the fitness reports for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 and 1 July to 20 December 2004. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10864-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No: 10864-0909 19 November 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL. The Board, consisting of Messrs. W. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 19 November 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09535-05
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) and (b), we have reviewed XXXXX requests to seek formal PME enrollment to be competitive for colonel, remedial promotion consideration, and retroactive active duty credit from 2000-2004. Therefore his request to return to active duty was denied at that time.R.F.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07688-02
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected that to show that he did not fail of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Active Reserve Major Selection Board. The Board, consisting of Messrs. McBride, allegations of error and injustice on 7 November 2002, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08391-07
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps Career Management Team, dated 23 October 2007 with enclosures, 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. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09932-09
These requests were denied on 2 September 2004. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Career Management Team (CMT), dated 24 July 2008 with enclosures, and the reports of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 September 2008 and 8 September 2009, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06104-02
I3oard 2oo0, 2001 or 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection 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. Because this material was used in the board's decision to current date of selection on the FY03 licable material in his Lieutenant Colone The selection process and date of rank assignment of a 4. regularly scheduled board is different...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04455-05
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 material error or injustice. During this period, - was credited with three qualifying years of service in his Marine Corps Career...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08257-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2008. 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 probable...