DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 1965-10
2 July 2010
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Sub ee eee
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD —
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Porm 149 dtd 9 Feb 10 w/attachments
(2) HOMC MIO memo dtd 1 Apr 10
(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, in
effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing the
service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry
dated 27 June 2002 and his undated rebuttal, copies of which
are at Tab A. He also impliedly requested removing the County
of Craven Department of Social Services letter dated 19 June
2002, a copy of which is at Tab B.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Grover, Ivins and McBride,
reviewed allegations of error and injustice on 1 July 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. Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies which
were available under existing law and regulations within the
Department of the Navy.
b. The contested page 11 entry counsels Petitioner for an
alleged incident of child neglect on or about 27 May 2002. The
impliedly contested letter from the County of Craven shows that
their investigation did not substantiate the allegation of
neglect. Petitioner bases his request on this letter.
c. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps office
with cognizance over page 11 entries commented to the effect
that the contested page 11 entry and Petitioner’s rebuttal
ghould be removed because the entry does not reference a
substantiated finding by the Family Service Center Care Review
Committee of child neglect, and it is improperly signed “By
direction.”
d. The page 11 on which the contested entry appears also
includes uncontested entries.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
and especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board finds an
error and injustice warranting full relief. The Board
substantially concurs with enclosure (2) in finding the
contested page 11 entry and Petitioner’s rebuttal should be
removed. The Board finds the County of Craven letter should be
removed as well, because it reveals an allegation of child
neglect that was found to be unsubstantiated. In view of the
above, the Board directs 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 27 June 2002 and Petitioner’s undated rebuttal
(Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) Service Contract
folder, images 42 and 44). This is to be accomplished by
reconstructing the page 11 on which the entry appears and
physically removing 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
County of Craven Department of Social Services letter dated 19
June 2002 (OMPF Service - Miscellaneous folder, image 8).
c, That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Board’s recommendation he 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.
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.
W. DEAN PFE rR
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09950-10
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Geberth, McBride and Pfeiffer, reviewed allegations of error and injustice on 30 September 2010, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies which were available under existing law...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07838-10
JAMS stated that the NUP “stemmed from [Petitioner’s] failure to report a civilian DUI arrest,” however, the UPB entry actually says he was punished “for failing to notify his command of his DUI conviction [emphasis added] .” JAM5 noted that “the requirement to report the conviction (rather than the arrest) is lawful.” d. Enclosure (4) explains that PERB directed removing the contested fitness report in light of enclosure (3). e. In enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC)...
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 | CY2014 | NR6848 14
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 illegible service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an error warranting the following corrective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12164-08
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 fitness report for 1 November 2004 to 31 May 2005 (copy at Tab A) and modifying his Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS) data by deleting the weight control entries for 8 February 1997 to 22 March 2000 and 1 March to 25 July 2005 (copy at Tab B).. The Board substantially concurs...
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 | CY2014 | NR3747 14
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 10 May 2011 (copy at Tab A}. The Board, consisting of Ms. Trucco and Messrs. Chapman and Exnicios, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 16 October 2014, and pursuant to its...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00098-01
The Board did not consider this request, because this investigation report is not in his record. Petitioner also argued that the Finally, he asserted the reviewing h. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case, reflecting their decision to deny his request to remove the contested fitness report. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (7) reflects that both the contested adverse fitness report and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01766-10
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. 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02819-10
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 documentation of his relief for cause (RFC) from recruiting duty. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Grover, Ivins and McBride, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 1 July 2010, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below...