DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 9891-09
14 October 2010
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 the date of rank and effective date of
your promotion to Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) 2 from 14 October
2009 to 1 August 2006; promoting you to CWO3 effective 1 August
2009; and removing all documentation of the delay of your
promotion to CWO2, removal of your selection for promotion to
Cwo2, consideration for administrative separation, and report of
misconduct.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 October 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 24 August
and 24 September 2010, copies of which are attached, and your
letter dated 11 October 2010 with enclosure.
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 24 September 2010. The Board was unable to find the
circumstances of your case did not reflect any misconduct or at
least questionable judgment, nor could it find the Secretary of
the Navy had insufficient grounds to doubt your fitness for
promotion to CWO2. Finally, the Board was unable to find any
material factual error in the Commandant of the Marine Corps
letter of 23 July 2008 or the Secretary's action of 14 October
2008. In this regard, the Board was unable to find the
Secretary erred by stating you were alone in a “locked” barracks
room with a junior enlisted female Marine, nor could it find the
relief you seek would be warranted if it could be established
that the room actually was not locked. 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 | 05418-08
Concerning your objection that your promotion was delayed beyond 90 days after final action in your criminal case, the Board noted that the delay of your promotion was not based solely on the proceedings in state court, but also on the disposition of your case by military authorities. Even if the six-month provision of SECNAVINST 1412.9B is considered applicable to the delay in your case, the Board noted that on 12 October 2005, before your promotion had been delayed for six months,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01968-10
HOMC has advised that Subject was discharged on 1 November 2009 on the basis of failures of selection by the FY 2009 and 2010 CWO3 Selection Boards. Because of the two failures of selection for promotion, he was discharged from the Marine Corps Reserve on 1 November 2009.” CONCLUSION: Delete the sentence “If he fails of selection by the FY 2011 promotion board, the Board finds that failure of selection should be removed as well, since it must be removed to restore the status Petitioner...
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 | CY2010 | 00446-10
You finally impliedly requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") counseling entry dated 25 January 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. Further, the (enclosure Board was unable to find your promotion would not have been delayed, had the results of the inspection, which was conducted on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09823-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested reports for 11 March to 15 July 2009 and 1 August to 30 September 2009; and modifying the report for 1 October 2008 to 10 March 2009 by removing the mark in section A, item 6.c (“Disciplinary Action”) and removing, from the third sighting officer’s comments, “SNM [Subject named Marine] has been the subject of numerous Human Factor Boards and Stan [standardization] Boards; all recommendations from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03374-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2010. 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 warranting removal of your failure of selection by the FY 2010 Captain Selection Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06069-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 00839-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by restoring the mark in section A, item 6.b (“Derogatory Material”) whose removal CMC had directed in your previous case, docket number 5661-08; removing, from the section D.1 (“Performance”) justification, “MRO [Marine reported on] was relieved of duties for violating Depot Order P1510.30L on three separate occasions.” and “because on another...
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...