DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 9717-10
10 March 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 remedial consideration for the Fiscal Year 2009
Master Sergeant Selection Board. 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. 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 opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) dated 8
December 2010 and 14 January 2011 and the e-mail from HOMC dated
10 March 2011, 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 found nothing
erroroneous or unjust in General W---’s not having provided a
letter in time for submission to your promotion board,
regardless of whether he had expressed an intention to do so.
Accordingly, 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. la. DYE
Executive Dvrestor
Enclosure
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2011 | 03186-11
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 | CY2011 | 05700-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 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 | CY2008 | 08727-08
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 | CY2011 | 04143-11
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 did not find persuasive the reporting senior’s letter Of 30 August 2010, recommending that the contested fitness report be removed as he did not believe that you rated an adverse report. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
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...
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 | 02203-10
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 and 10858- 08). The Board also considered your counsel's rebuttal letter dated 1 April 2010 with enclosures. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...