DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON OC 20370-5100 .
JSR
Docket No: 12242-08
25 June 2009
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.
You requested adjusting your staff sergeant date of rank and
effective date to reflect selection by the Calendar Year (CY}
2003 Staff Sergeant Selection Board, rather than the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2008 Staff Sergeant Selection Board.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 25 June 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, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 11
February and 29 March 2009, 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 opinions
in concluding that your promotion should not be backdated, as
none of the three fitness reports whose removal has been
directed was in your record for the CY 2003 or the FY 2004
promotion board, convened on 19 July 2004; and it was unable to
find your selection by the FY 2005, 2006 or 2007 promotion board
would have been probable, even with a corrected record. In this
regard, the Board noted that while the contested report for 1 to
15 March 2005 was entered in your record on 18 July 2005, before
the FY 2005 promotion board convened on 19 July 2005, and the
report for 1 March to 1 July 2005 was entered on 11 August 2005,
before that promotion board adjourned on 23 September 2005, the
report for 2 July to 31 October 2005 was not entered until 24
July 2006, well after that board had adjourned. The Board did
recognize that the service record page 11 entry dated 17
December 1999, reflecting your nonrecommendation for promotion
to sergeant because of overweight was lined through, but without
any initials as required for proper invalidation. 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,
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06748-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. 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 (docket number 2803-07), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
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 | 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 | CY2007 | 07883-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 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. 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 | CY2008 | 09296-08
You also impliedly requested reconsideration of your previous request to adjust your gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-7) date of rank and effective date to reflect selection by the Calendar Year (CY) 2001 or 2002 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, rather than CY 2003. While the Board did consider your having been selected for promotion to master sergeant the first time you were considered with a corrected record to be new and material evidence in support of backdating your promotion to gunnery...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11168-10
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 (docket number 4974-10), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, the Board particularly noted the figures provided in paragraph 3 of the advisory opinion, as well as the uncontested derogatory service record page 11 entries dated 14 November 1993 and 21 March, 24 March and 15 November...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07373-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. 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 (docket number 3061-04), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
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 | 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003279C070208
The evidence of record confirms this Board directed the actions that resulted in the applicant’s promotion to SFC prior to his REFRAD for retirement. The evidence of record further confirms that based on the recommendation of this Board, the applicant was considered for promotion by a STAB, which resulted in his selection for and promotion to SFC, effective 1 September 2001. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...