DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 446-10
12 May 2011
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, in effect, that your naval record be corrected to
show you were not removed from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Gunnery
Sergeant Selection List, but were promoted to gunnery sergeant
pursuant to your selection by the FY 2007 Gunnery Sergeant
Selection Board. You Further requested removing, from your
Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) , correspondence of your
relief for cause from duties as Administrative Chief, Region 8.
You finally impliedly requested removing the service record page
11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") counseling entry dated 25
January 2008.
Your request to remove from your OMPF correspondence of your
relief for cause was not considered, as your OMPF contains no
such correspondence.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 May 2011. 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
ons from Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC), dated
and (c), 6 July 2010, 18
dad 20 January 2011 with reference
February and 8 December BULLS ,
11 as your letter dated 6 May
advisory opini
21 June 2010 with references (b)
October 2010, 2 December 2010 an
(c), and the HOMC e-mails dated 4
copies of which are attached, as we
2011 with enclosures.
entious consideration of the entire
that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
In this cofmection, the Board substantially
tained in the advisory opinions
After careful and consci
record, the Board found
error or injustice.
concurred with the comments con
dated 6 July 2010 and 20 January 2012 j
dation of 3 April 2008 to delay
oned the “mission capable”
ported until 6 May 2008
The Board found that the recommen
your promotion could not have menti
inspection results that were not re
(10) to your letter of 6 May 2011). 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 12 February 2008, been available. The Board recognized that
4n correspondence of 30 May 2008, your command recommended that
you be promoted on 1 June 2008. However, notwithstanding the
non-derogatory fitness report the command gave you for 1 June to
31 December 2007, the supporting statements you provided and the
inspection results, the Board was unable to find that you did
not display the deficiencies reflected in the contested
counseling entry or those cited as the basis for removing you
from the selection list. The Board was likewise unable to find
that either the issuance of the counseling entry or your removal
from the selection list was a punitive measure, or that either
action was taken in reprisal for your request mast concerning
the delay of your promotion, because of your family issues, or
for any other improper reason. In this regard, the Board was
unable to find that First Sergeant H--- was biased against you,
that any of the actions taken against you were the result of
such bias, or that you were set up to fail. The Board did find
that although it was not submitted, the letter of 18 January
2008 requesting your relief for good of the service (enclosure
(16) to your letter of 6 May 2011) reflected the command’ s
belief that your limited background for your job, together with
your family issues, impaired your performance. The Board was
unable to find you did not receive adequate counseling about
perceived deficiencies, noting that the request of 12 June 2008
for your relief for cause stated you had received “daily
performance monitoring, counselings, development of work aides
istance visits,” and further
[sic], and Group headquarters assl
noting that counseling takes many forms, 50 the recipient may
not recognize it as such when it is provided. Finally, the
Board could not find you were never given a clear understanding
of your role as the Administrative Chief, Region 8.
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 ig on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
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 | CY2011 | 03147-11
Petitioner further requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 19 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab F. Finally, he requested setting aside the Commandant Of the Marine Corps (CMC)'s revocation dated 8 July 2008 of his selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 First Sergeant Selection Board and promoting him to first sergeant with the lineal precedence he would have had, but for the revocation. The PERB report at enclosure (2) stated that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07272-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2013. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, reguiations and policies. The Board found that your FY 2012 failure of selection should stand as well, since it found insufficient basis to modify your fitness report record;...
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05700-11
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 | CY2007 | 10174-07
You requested, in effect, that you be promoted to gunnery sergeant, pursuant to your selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 Feburary 2008. 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 | CY2010 | 00883-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 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 | CY2013 | NR1960 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 2013. 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
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 | CY2009 | 10843-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. 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 9230-08}, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in...