DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 5302-09
13 October 2009
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
(1) DD Form 149 dtd:15 May 09 w/attachments,..—
(2) HOMC MIO memo dtd 4 Jun 09
(3) Subj’s naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written
application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting that his
naval record be corrected by removing the service record page
11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") entry dated
24 December 2008 and his rebuttal dated 6 January 2009, copies
of which are in enclosure (1) at Tab A. .
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Dunn, Grover and Sproul,
reviewed allegations of error and injustice on 8 October 2009,
and pursuant to its regulations, determined that limited relief -
should be granted. Documentary material considered by the
Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b, In correspondence at enclosure (2), the Headquarters
Marine Corps office with cognizance over the subject matter of
Petitioner's case has commented to the effect that it has merit
and warrants favorable action.
ee aves eae OTe VS AVSUUIIpLIeuUTU Vy Plysrocarly
removing the page 11 on which the entry appears and the
rebuttal, or completely obliterating the entry and rebuttal 30
they cannot be read; rather than merely lining through them.
b.. That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such
entries or material be added to the record in the future.
c. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner's naval record be returned to the Board, together
with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention ina
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a ‘part of Petitioner’s naval record.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6{c)) it is certified that a quorum
was present. at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that
the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s
proceedings in the above entitled matter.
Bove , fewtafe
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN | JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board. for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
723.6{e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it
is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken
under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the
Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
yo2_W, DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08954-09
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 by removing the service record page il (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entries dated 17 January 2008 {two, concerning the January and February 2008 sergeant promotion periods) and 29 February 2008 (concerning the March 2008 sergeant promotion period) with his undated rebuttal. The Board,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04206-09
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070})"} entry dated 27 July 2005 and her undated rebuttal. That her record be corrected further by removing the service record page 11 entry dated 24 October 2005. c. That her record be corrected further by modifying the service record page 11 entry dated 11 April 2005 by removing “This has been your second offense of search [sic] nature.” d. That any material or entries...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04576-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) counseling entry dated 28 December 2007 and his rebuttal dated 31 December 2007, copies of which are in enclosure (1) at Tab Piss 2. The Board also finds that Petitioner’s rebuttal should be modified by removing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03744-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 ° ue : BUG Docket No: 3744-10 22 April 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Sub] :
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00700-09
The Board, consisting of Ms. Colbert and Messrs. Storz and Tew, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 2 April 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. c. In correspondence attached as enclosure (4), the HOMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner’s request to remove the service record page llb entry has commented to the effect that this...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09918-08
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting that her naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 20 June 2008 and her rebuttal of the same date, copies of which are in enclosure (1) at Tab A. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04770-09
The Board, consisting of Ms. Wilcher and Messrs. Bowen and McBride, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 9 July 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below shouid be taken on the available evidence of record. Region 2, MCESC [sic] [Marine Corps Embassy Security Group], Counseled this date for the following deficiencies: Violations of Article 133 and Article 134 UCMI [Uniform Code of Military Justice] relating to an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11291-09
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 by removing the service record page 11 © (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 8 February 2007, a copy of which is in enclosure (1). The Board, consisting of Messrs. Garst, Leeman and ,.Mann, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 10 December 2009, and pursuant to its...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10328-09
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 by removing the service record page lla (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 10 May 2004, a copy of which is at Tab A. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the service record page lla (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 10 May 2004. That any material or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02415-09
application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 1i(b) (“Administrative Remarks (1070)"} entry dated i? ‘CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board substantially concurs with enclosure (2) in finding the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, removal of the page 11(d) entry dated 8 March 2002, with the rebuttal dated 12 March 2002, as...