DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
_ BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 8019-09
5 January 2010
ae
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.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
granted you remedial consideration for the Fiscal Year 2007
through 2009 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Boards.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 5 January 2010. 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 March and 19 November 2009 with enclosures,
copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your
five electronic mail (e-mail) transmissions dated 23 November
2009, two e-mails dated 24 November 2009, e-mail dated 3
December 2009, facsimile transmission dated 1 December 2009
with enclosures, letter dated 8 December 2009 with enclosures,
letter dated 16 December 2009, letter dated 17 December 2009
with enclosures, and letter dated 19 December 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 dated 19 November 2009. Accordingly, your
application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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,
Executive D
Enclosures
Copy to: een
The Honorab1 cai
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08727-08
zB three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 11 February 2009, the advisory opinion from the HOMC Enlisted Promotion Section (MMPR-2), dated 10 June 2009, and the advisory opinion from the HOMC Military Awards Branch (MMMA~3), dated 4 January 2010, copies of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11693-10
You also requested that the service record page 11 counseling entry dated 21 November 2008 be modified by deleting the following: Your demonstrated lack of maturity, judgment and decision making abilities, specifically your inappropriate sexual relationship with a CPL [corporal] [pay grade E=-4}(fthen a PFC [private first class) [pay grade E-2] when it started). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09583-09
You requested modifying the fitness report for 8 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) marks and comments). 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09809-09
You further requested that these reports, as well as the report for 31 October 2007 to 30 June 2008, be modified by adding, to section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] meets Physical Evaluation criteria in MCO [Marine Corps Order] 6100.12, and is within standards.” Finally, you requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2010 Active Reserve Colonel Selection Board, and granting you special selection board consideration...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10175-08
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. Regarding the recommendation, in paragraphs 4.b.ii and 5 of the JAM5 advisory opinion, to amend the commanding officer’s/RO’s letter of 4 May 2006 (among the ericlosures to the HQMC routing sheet dated 10 October 2006) by removing the words “for his civilian conviction,” the Board noted that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12153-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. 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 | CY2009 | 04984-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5198 14
You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 January to 25 June 2007, 11 July to 31 December 2009 and 19 May to 31 December 2010. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 January to 25 June 2007 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is assigned to the Body Composition Program.” and “SECT[ion] A, Item 5a: MRO is currently assigned to the Body...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06325-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2009. In this regard, the Board noted that the recommendation, in the MCRC advisory opinion dated 3 September 2008, to remove this documentation gave no basis for concurring with your request. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11386-09
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 31 March to 5 October 2007. and “completed most tasks when supervised and.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. 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.