DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON BG 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 9126-10
18 August 2011
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 promotion to
master gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-9}) from the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2004 Reserve Master Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board. By
implication, you further requested that your retired grade be
changed accordingly, from master sergeant (pay grade E-8) to
master gunnery sergeant. Your previous case, docket number
2503-08, was denied on 8 January 2009. In accordance with the
stipulation of dismissal of your case before the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, your
cage was reconsidered.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case
on 18 August 2011. 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 file on your prior case. The
Board also considered the advisory opinions from Headquarters
Marine Corps dated 14 October 2010 and 29 June 2011, copies of
which are attached. Finally, the Board considered your
rebuttal letters dated 29 November and i December 2010 and 4
August 2011, each 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 regard, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments in the advisory opinions. The
Board found you were eligible to be considered by the enlisted
remedial selection board (ERSB), as you were not in confinement
when the regular promotion board convened. In the absence of
your having been selected by the FY 2004 Reserve Master Gunnery
Sergeant Selection Board or an ERSB for that promotion board,
the Board was unable to find you should have been promoted from
that promotion board. In view of the above, 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,
Lo emit)
W. DEAN PFEIFYER
@xecutive Dir
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01685-06
In the alternative, you now request new enlisted remedial selection boards (ERSB’s) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1999, 2000 and 2001 master sergeant and first sergeant selection boards.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. The Board found the ~Th’IPR-2 advisory opinion dated 2 August 2006 was correct as to the number of Marines with whom you were compared, despite the indications, in the...
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 | 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 | 03192-06
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 Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 7 June 2006, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07272-12
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 | 11168-10
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 4974-10), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, the Board particularly noted the figures provided in paragraph 3 of the advisory opinion, as well as the uncontested derogatory service record page 11 entries dated 14 November 1993 and 21 March, 24 March and 15 November...
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 | 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 | CY2007 | 10584-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2008. In this connection, the Board particularly noted that you were not selected when you received remedial consideration for promotion from the FY 2005 and 2006 Master Sergeant Selection Boards; and the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion dated 29 April 2008, except to note you actually had only one observed gunnery sergeant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02503-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 January 2009. 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 probable...