Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01403-09
Original file (01403-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 1403-09
14 May 2009

 

Dear 7%

 

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 that your gunnery sergeant date of rank and
effective date be adjusted from 1 April 2008 to

1 March 2007, to reflect selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006
Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, vice FY 2007.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 May 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 opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps Enlisted
Promotion Section (MMPR-2), dated 6 April 2009, a copy of which
is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter
dated 29 April 2009 -with enclosures.
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
from MMPR-2. 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 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,

ROBERT D. ALMAN -
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08315-08

    Original file (08315-08.pdf) 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. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 10290-08

    Original file (10290-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The front page of his fitness report for 18 March to 25 July 2008, a copy of which is at Tab B, verifies he had a first class PFT score of 205. d. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps Enlisted Promotion Section commented to the effect Petitioner’s request should be denied, as he “chose not to take his PFT making him unqualified for extension or reenlistment.” e. Enclosure (3) is Petitioner’s reply to enclosure (2), detailing the circumstances that prevented him from taking...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 07373-08

    Original file (07373-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 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 | CY2011 | 05700-11

    Original file (05700-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 2011. 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 | 06748-08

    Original file (06748-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 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...