DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 726-11
15 August 2011
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records |
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: EX-SSCT
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Enel: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 18 Jan 11 w/atchs, Subject’s ltr atd
20 Jul 11 w/encls and Cong 1tr dtd 9 Mar 11 w/encl
(2) HOMC MIO memos atd 7 Apr, 21 Jun and 26 Jui 11
(3) Subject's naval record
1. 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 removing the
service record page il (“Administrative Remarks (1070) ")
entries dated 30 December 2008 with rebuttal dated 10 January
2009, 15 June 2009 with rebuttal dated 22 June 2009, 6 December
2009 with rebuttal dated 11 December 2009 and 2 March 2011 with
rebuttal dated 4 March 2011, copies of which are at Tab A.
>. The Board, consisting of Mses. Guill and Siler and Mr.
Chapman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 11 August 2011, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary
material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures,
naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:
a. Before applying to the Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps office
with cognizance over the subject matter of this case has
commented to the effect that the request has merit and warrants
favorable action.
CONCLUSION :
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
and especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board finds an
error and injustice warranting the following corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by
removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks
(1070)”) entries dated 30 December 2008 with rebuttal dated 10
January 2009, 15 June 2009 with rebuttal dated 22 June 2009, 6
December 2009 with rebuttal dated 11 December 2009 and 2 March
2011 with rebuttal dated 4 March 2011. This is to be
accomplished by physically removing the page 11’s on which the
entries appear and the rebuttals, or completely obliterating
the entries and rebuttals so they cannot be read, rather than
merely lining through them.
b. That the fitness report for 1 October 2008 to 10 March
2009, dated 10 dune 2009 and signed by:
USMC, be modified by removing all references to the removed
page 11 entry dated 30 December 2008, to include the following:
{1) Page 4, “Justification” for mark in “Judgement [sic] :
item G(3)": Remove “a page 11 on 12 [sic] December
2008 and”.
(2) Section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and
Additional Comments”):
(a) Directed Comment, Sect [ion] A, item 5a: Remove
“and 1 page 11 (20081230)".
(b) Remove “, and received a page 11 on his
professionalism and anger management issues”.
(3) Addendum Page - MRO [Marine reported on] statement
dated 11 June 2009: Remove the following:
(a) °, a page 11 entry,”.
(b) My actions were unacceptable {raised voice,
stormed out of the building) at Edwards Federal
2
Credit Union on 8 Dec 2008. 1 became upset with
the personnel at EFCU for requiring me to fill
out paperwork for a transaction, converting cash
to check (this had never been required before).
On 6 & 7 Dec 2008 there numerous events that the
unit needed Marines to attend; toys needed
collecting & distributing and much work needed
to be accomplished. There were 200+ Active &
‘Reserve Marines on deck during the two days Toys
for Tots received help from 5 reservists for a
total of 6 hours. I was overstressed on Monday
morning because I felt I received a lack of
support from the command during the previous two
days which carried over to Monday morning &
should not have. I have apologized to the
personnel at EFCU. Whatever the mitigating
circumstances were, I had no excuse for losing
my bearing at EFCU. According to the page 11,
this incident occurred on 5 bec 2008. The page
11 was written on 20081230 & I was not counseled
about the page 11 until 20090107 (31 days
later).
c. That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner’s regord and that no such
entries or material be added to the record in the future.
d. That any material. directed to be removed from
Petitioner's naval record be returned to the Board, together
with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c)} it is certified that a quorum
was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that
the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's
proceedings in the above entitled matter.
Dunetan! xf, faced bury
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
3
nn
(32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
d compliance with its provisions, it
corrective action, taken
has been approved by the
Naval Records
723. 6{e)) and having assure
is hereby announced that the foregoing
under the authority of reference fa),
Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
Ld Dea
DEAN PFE
enn Dibte r
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5809 13
MIQ did not address the entries dated 23 May or 17 July 2012. c. In enclosure (3), JAM, the HOMC Judge Advocate Division, Military Justice Branch commented to the effect that all the entries at issue should be removed, because the entries dated 23 January, 23 May and 17 July 2012 were improperly backdated, and the entries dated 20 January and 23 March 2012 were issued after Petitioner should have been promoted on 1 May 2011. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing - the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11866 14
c. The page 11 entry at issue counsels Petitioner for “Violation of the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] Article 92 by involving yourself in an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of another service member.” d. Enclosure (3) shows that the PERB basis for removing the contested fitness report included a finding that the page 11 entry in question, which was cited in the fitness report, “was not substantiated.” e. In the advisory opinion at enclosure (4), the HOMC office with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04206-09
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070})"} entry dated 27 July 2005 and her undated rebuttal. That her record be corrected further by removing the service record page 11 entry dated 24 October 2005. c. That her record be corrected further by modifying the service record page 11 entry dated 11 April 2005 by removing “This has been your second offense of search [sic] nature.” d. That any material or entries...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4745 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7O! c. Enclosure (2), the report of the HOMC PERB in Petitioner's case, shows that the PERB directed removing the contested fitness report for 1 January to 27 April 2008, but commented to the effect that the five remaining reports at issue should stand. In enclosure (5), Petitioner provided new evidence in support of his new request to remove the page 11 entries dated 11 June 2010 and 12 May 2011. g. In enclosures (6) and (7),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10145-08
Pursuant to the provisions of reference {a), Petitioner, a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps Reserve and former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, applied to this Board requesting to remove administrative remarks (page 11) service record entries dated 7 October 2002, and promotion to sergeant on 1 November 2002. On J October 2002, he signed an adverse page 11 service record entry which stated that he was counseled regarding deficiencies in his performance and conduct and advised...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5935 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the service record page ll ("Administrative Remarks (1070)") entry dated 5 March 2013 and. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosures (2) and (3), the Board finds the existence of an error and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01582-11
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No: 1582-11 10 March 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Tes Secretary of the Navy ij REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: fa) Title 10 U.S.C. 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 removing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03147-11
Petitioner further requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 19 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab F. Finally, he requested setting aside the Commandant Of the Marine Corps (CMC)'s revocation dated 8 July 2008 of his selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 First Sergeant Selection Board and promoting him to first sergeant with the lineal precedence he would have had, but for the revocation. The PERB report at enclosure (2) stated that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07838-10
JAMS stated that the NUP “stemmed from [Petitioner’s] failure to report a civilian DUI arrest,” however, the UPB entry actually says he was punished “for failing to notify his command of his DUI conviction [emphasis added] .” JAM5 noted that “the requirement to report the conviction (rather than the arrest) is lawful.” d. Enclosure (4) explains that PERB directed removing the contested fitness report in light of enclosure (3). e. In enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10575-10
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 January to 31 December 2007 (copy at Tab A) and the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)"”) entries dated 14 and 15 February 2008 with Petitioner’s rebuttal dated 19 February 2008 (copies at Tab B). Aldrich and Trucco and Mr. Boyd, reviewed...