DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 2203-10
9 April 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. Your most recent previous
case, docket number 10358-08, was denied on 24 September 2009.
You request promotion to pay grade E-8 (master sergeant or
first sergeant), with a date of rank and effective date
reflecting selection by the Calendar Year 1999 promotion board.
In accordance with the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia remand order of 23 February 2010, your
Case was reconsidered.
A entirely new three-member panel of the Board for Correction
of Naval Records, consisting of Messrs. Dunn, Shy and Tew (the
previous panel consisted of Ms. Countryman and Messrs. Butherus
and Swarens), sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 April 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, and the Board's files on
your prior cases (docket numbers 8653-01, 1685-06 and 10858-
08). In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion
from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 18 March 2010, a copy of
which is attached. The Board also considered your counsel's
rebuttal letter dated 1 April 2010 with enclosures.
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. Accordingly, the Board again voted to deny
relief. 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,
W. DEAN bPE
Executive Dire
Enclosure
Copy to:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05385-10
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 files on your prior cases (docket numbers 8653-01, 1685-06, 10858-08 and 2203-10). By order of 31 March 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia again remanded your case to this Board to address expressly three issues your counsel raised: (1)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09126-10
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 | 04892-10
You requested special selection board (SSB) consideration for the Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 through 2001 Marine Corps Reserve (Active Reserve) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards or, in the alternative, promotion to lieutenant colonel with the date of rank and effective date you would have been assigned, had you been promoted pursuant to selection by the FY 1997 promotion board. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your h...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06937-08
1552 Encl: (1) BCNR file, docket numbers 5817-03 (Subject’s last previous case) and 5214-98 (Subject’s initial case), incl Subject’s naval record (2) AGC (M&RA) memo dtd 11 Jul 08 w/encl (Subject’s ltr dtd 5 Jun 08 w/encls) (3) AGC (M&RA) ltr dtd 9 Oct 08 (4) BCNR rpt to GECNAV HD:hd Docket No: 05817-03 dtd 15 Dec 03 less encls (5) Decision of US Court of Appeals (pc Cir) No. It shows that on 20 January 2004, the AGC (M&RA) approved the Board’s recommendation to deny relief. Petitioner's...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12409-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 31 March 2011. The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 15 November 2010 and 17 March 2011, each with attachments. 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 | CY2009 | 10729-09
* 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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09296-08
You also impliedly requested reconsideration of your previous request to adjust your gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-7) date of rank and effective date to reflect selection by the Calendar Year (CY) 2001 or 2002 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, rather than CY 2003. While the Board did consider your having been selected for promotion to master sergeant the first time you were considered with a corrected record to be new and material evidence in support of backdating your promotion to gunnery...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10418-07
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 changing the date of rank and effective date of his promotion to gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-7) from 1 July 1994 to 1 July 1993; and changing the date of rank and effective date of his promotion to master sergeant (pay grade E-8) from 1 April 2001 to 1 April 2000, to reflect...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6179 14
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.