Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07361-10
Original file (07361-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 7361-10
25 August 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 24 August 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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC)
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 July 2010,
and the electronic mail (e-mail) from the HQMC Enlisted
Promotion Section (MMPR-2) dated 14 July 2010, copies of which
are 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
report of the PERB, except to note that the e-mail from MMPR-2
reflects you were eligible for and not selected by the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2009 Staff Sergeant Selection Board; and to note
further that the contested fitness report was entered in your
Official Military Personnel File on 18 June 2009, before the FY
2009 promotion board convened on 14 July 2009. 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,

   
  

W. DEAN PF
Executive D

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04984-09

    Original file (04984-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02384-10

    Original file (02384-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 04892-10

    Original file (04892-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 08727-08

    Original file (08727-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    zB three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2010. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 11 February 2009, the advisory opinion from the HOMC Enlisted Promotion Section (MMPR-2), dated 10 June 2009, and the advisory opinion from the HOMC Military Awards Branch (MMMA~3), dated 4 January 2010, copies of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07373-08

    Original file (07373-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. 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 3061-04), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06266-10

    Original file (06266-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your previous request, docket number 12841-09, again seeking to remove the original fitness report and replace it with the revised report, or just remove the original report, and remove your failures of selection to lieutenant colonel, which then included failures of selection by the FY 2005 and 2006 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, was administratively closed on 25 May 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7775 13

    Original file (NR7775 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | 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 | CY2010 | 03806-10

    Original file (03806-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Ms. Siler and Messrs. Delorier and Tew, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 6 May 2010, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. The FY 2011 AR Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which considered Petitioner with a corrected fitness report record but status as an officer who had failed of © selection to lieutenant colonel, selected him. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09583-09

    Original file (09583-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested modifying the fitness report for 8 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) marks and comments). 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...