Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01766-10
Original file (01766-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JSR
Docket No. 1766-10
12 April 2010

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

cs

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

1) DD Form 149 dtd 22 Feb 10 w/attachments
(2) HQOMC MIO memo dtd 1 Apr 10
(3) Subject's naval record

Encl:

1. 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 29 May 2008, a
copy of which is at Tab A. He also impliedly requested removing
the page 11 entry dated 16 April 2008 and his rebuttal dated 21
April 2008, copies of which are at Tab B.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Hess and Pfeiffer,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 12
April 2010, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the
corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record. 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 ail
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. In correspondence attached as enclostire (2), the
Headquarters Marine Corps office having cognizance over the
subject matter addressed in Petitioner's application has
commented to the effect that the request has merit and warrants
favorable action.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2), the Board
finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting the
following corrective action. .

RECOMMENDATION :

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing
the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”)
entry dated 16 April 2008 and his rebuttal dated 21 April 2008.
This is to be accomplished by physically removing the page 11 on
which the entry appears and the rebuttal, or completely
obliterating the entry and rebuttal so they cannot be read,
rather than merely lining through them.

b. That his record be corrected further by removing the
page 11 entry dated 29 May 2008. This is to be accomplished by
physically removing the page 11 on which the entry appears, or
completely obliterating the entry so it cannot be read, rather
than merely lining through it.

c. 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.

d. 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 in a
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.

PvVn@7. f . Lire Putn

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.

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04206-09

    Original file (04206-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2012 | 12640 12

    Original file (12640 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Clemmons, Gorenflo and Midboe, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 24 January 2013, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11(b) (“Administrative Remarks (1070) ") entry dated 5 August >010 and his undated rebuttal. d. That any material directed to be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10575-10

    Original file (10575-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 fitness report for 1 January to 31 December 2007 (copy at Tab A) and the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)"”) entries dated 14 and 15 February 2008 with Petitioner’s rebuttal dated 19 February 2008 (copies at Tab B). Aldrich and Trucco and Mr. Boyd, reviewed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04771-08

    Original file (04771-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BUG Docket No: 4771-08 5 September 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: er REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.c. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05641-08

    Original file (05641-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    No: 5641-08 5 December 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: Leer) REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 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.d (*Administrative Remarks (1070)") entry dated 6 April 2006 and his rebuttal dated 13...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08514-07

    Original file (08514-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 1 August 2005 and her undated rebuttal, copies of which are in enclosure (1) at Tab A.2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Willis and Messrs. Grover and Pfeiffer, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4745 14

    Original file (NR4745 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7O! c. Enclosure (2), the report of the HOMC PERB in Petitioner's case, shows that the PERB directed removing the contested fitness report for 1 January to 27 April 2008, but commented to the effect that the five remaining reports at issue should stand. In enclosure (5), Petitioner provided new evidence in support of his new request to remove the page 11 entries dated 11 June 2010 and 12 May 2011. g. In enclosures (6) and (7),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05301-08

    Original file (05301-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 6 July 2006 and his rebuttal dated 17 July 2006, copies of which are in enclosure (1) at Tab A. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09918-08

    Original file (09918-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | 08954-09

    Original file (08954-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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,...