DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 3510-09
13 August 2009
This ig 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 removing the service record page 11
(“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 23 April 1987.
You further requested backdating your promotion to corporal (pay
grade E-4) to 1 May 1987 or 1 April 1988, rather than 1 January
1989; backdating your promotion to sergeant (pay grade E-5) to 1
May 1988 in the Regular Marine Corps rather than 1 January 1993
in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve; backdating your promotion
to staff sergeant (pay grade E-6) accordingly; and promoting you
to gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-7) to reflect selection when
eligible in the promotion zone.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 13 August 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, undated and
dated 4 June 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. Concerning the contested page 11 entry, the
Board was unable to find you should have been recommended for
promotion to corporal or that your commanding officer told you
that you had no right to make a rebuttal to the entry. 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 | 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 | 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...
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 | 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 | CY2008 | 12242-08
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, 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 | 03433-08
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 changing his primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) to 0351 (infantry assaultman) ; removing the adverse fitness report for 15 September 2002 to 13 March 2003, a copy of which is at Tab A (enclosure (2) shows the Headquarters Marine Corps {(HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB} has...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01309-99
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. You further contend that the asterisk, which indicates a fitness report was referred to the Marine concerned for a chance to make a statement, contributed to your failures by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 and 1998 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. In our opinion, all three boards were able to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07937-00
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 10 and 30 January 2001, copies of which are attached. This page 11 entry has the appearance of not recommending her for promotion for the month of June 2000 'after the fact'. or recommending her for promotion and later 'will not promote' was in accordance with what is promote her.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5809 13
MIQ did not address the entries dated 23 May or 17 July 2012. c. In enclosure (3), JAM, the HOMC Judge Advocate Division, Military Justice Branch commented to the effect that all the entries at issue should be removed, because the entries dated 23 January, 23 May and 17 July 2012 were improperly backdated, and the entries dated 20 January and 23 March 2012 were issued after Petitioner should have been promoted on 1 May 2011. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing - the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04816-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 September 2002. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 11 ‘July 2Qo2, a copy of which is attached. Marine Corps policy is that reasonable efforts at rehabilitation should be made and that the commander is authorized to document those efforts by a page 11 counseling entry per the IRAM.