DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 7246-10
8 September 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 entering, in your Official Military Personnel File
(OMPF), your certificate of completion of Expeditionary Warfare
School dated 12 June 2009. You further requested that the entry
date be changed to June 2009. Finally, you requested removing
your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Lamited
Duty Officer (LDO) Major Selection Board.
It is noted that Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) entered the
certificate in your OMPF on 4 May 2010, after the FY 2011 LDO
Major Selection Board convened on 23 October 2009.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 September 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. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion from HQMC dated 16 August 2010, a copy of which
is attached.
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 in
finding your failure of selection for promotion should stand.
The Board found no basis for changing the entry date. In view
of the above, your application for relief beyond that effected
by HOMC 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,
LQ
W. DEAN PF
Executive or
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13280-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2011. In light of the e-mail dated 20 December 2010, the Board was unable to find an adverse version of the fitness report for 1 June 2006 to 30 June 2007 was in your record considered by the FY 2009 Major Selection Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02142-01
Every selection board considers a group of highly This process inevitably results in a Candidates are often not aware that members participating on 4. a selection board as a voting member, recorder, or affiliated with the selection board process'in any way, are prohibited from discussing why one particular individual is/was selected over another. The proceedings of selection boards are confidential counseling of failed to Subj: OMMENDATION IN CASE OF PNC(SW) The Deputy Chief of Naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00093-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing both contested fitness reports. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2010. 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 | 02384-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 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 | CY2010 | 00446-10
You finally impliedly requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") counseling entry dated 25 January 2008. 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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06382-09
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. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis ‘to remove those documents, it had no grounds to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06106-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable. 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 04288-06
In the alternative, you requested that your captain date of rank and effective date be adjusted from 1 September 1990 to 1 December 1989, to reflect selection by the FY 1990 Captain Selection Board, vice the FY 1991 Captain Selection Board, as your redesignation as an unrestricted officer came too late for you to be considered in the promotion zone by the earlier promotion board. Applicant was selected for redesignation for unrestricted officer as announced in reference (c) . The FY91 USMC...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08487-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove your failure of selection by the FY 2011...