Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02199-10
Original file (02199-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BJG

Docket No: 2199-10
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 remedial consideration for the Fiscal Year 2006
Master Sergeant Selection Board or promotion to master
sergeant.

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. The Board also considered
the advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 26
March and 21 July 2010, and the memorandum for the record (MFR)
dated 7 September 2010, copies of which are attached. The

Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 5 October
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. The Board was unable to find any
requirement that you be granted an extension of enlistment to
allow you a chance to be considered for promotion. In this
regard, the Board particularly noted the contents of the MFR.
The Board did not consider it unjust that you came up on
service limitations as a gunnery sergeant before you had been

considered for promotion to master sergeant. 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,

Wang

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dil

 

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09126-10

    Original file (09126-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested promotion to master gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-9}) from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Reserve Master Gunnery Sergeant Selection 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, and the Board’s file on your prior case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09717-10

    Original file (09717-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also impliedly requested, in the event of your promotion to master sergeant before the date of your transfer to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, 30 September 2009, that your retired grade be changed from gunnery sergeant to master sergeant. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2011. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the: burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07272-12

    Original file (07272-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 10843-09

    Original file (10843-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04107-10

    Original file (04107-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board: for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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 | CY2009 | 10729-09

    Original file (10729-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    * 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 found that you offered nothing new and material regarding your transfer to the FMCR except your contention, in paragraph 5 of your letter dated 24 June 2009, that you submitted a request, never received by the HOMC. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03186-11

    Original file (03186-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 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 | 04273-07

    Original file (04273-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion dated 4 April 2008 in finding your selection by the FY 2005 Staff Sergeant Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the later...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6179 14

    Original file (NR6179 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This request was denied on 30 September 2013. #, three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 22 January 2015. 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 | CY2013 | NR1960 13

    Original file (NR1960 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...