Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05700-11
Original file (05700-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100

 

JSR
Docket No: 5700-11
6 October 2011

 

Dear Gunnery Sergeant iy.

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 that your gunnery sergeant date of rank and
effective date be adjusted from 1 July 2009 to reflect selection
by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board,
rather than FY 2009.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 6 October 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 opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) dated 9
August 2011 and the e-mail from HOMC dated 17 August 2011,
copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 22 September
2011. The Board also considered copies of your fitness reports
for 2 February to 20 August 2002, 10 October to 15 December 2002
and 7 March to 17 May 2003, whose removal was directed by the
HOMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB).

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. The Board was unable to find your selection
by the FY 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008 Gunnery Sergeant Selection
Board would have been probable, had your record not included any
of the three fitness reports that were removed from your record,
pursuant to the direction of the PERB, on 9 April 2009, after
your failures of selection and before the FY 2009 promotion
board, by which you were selected, convened on 14 April 2009.

In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the
comments contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the advisory
opinion. 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 FRR

Executive D

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00883-10

    Original file (00883-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 09555-09

    Original file (09555-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 25 November 2002 to 29 May 2003. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 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 | CY2008 | 10207-08

    Original file (10207-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. 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 | 11168-10

    Original file (11168-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2011 | 03147-11

    Original file (03147-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2009 | 08554-09

    Original file (08554-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board further concurred with the advisory opinion in = concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the fitness report CMC has directed removing. request, a Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for i July 2005 to 21 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07403-08

    Original file (07403-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 July 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 material...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 05058-08

    Original file (05058-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2008. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, except to note your request was not for remedial consideration for promotion to master sergeant, but adjusting the date of rank and effective date of your promotion to reflect selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Master Sergeant Selection...