DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BIG
Docket No: 5710-11
18 October 2011
Dear Gunnery Sergeant Si
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 12 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 22 July 2011, a copy of which is attached. The
Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 29 August 2011
with enclosure.
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
advisory opinion. The Board was unable to find the contested
page 11(b) entry was issued to punish you for going against
your commanding officer's request to reclassify her Battalion
Career Planner, nor could it find you did not have access to
the Functional Area Inspector’s Report dated 17 December 2009.
Finally, while the Board recognized that the staff sergeant
concerned had a fitness report removed by the HOMC Performance
Evaluation Review Board and was not reduced as a result of
competency review board proceedings, the Board found this did
not excuse the actions for which you were counseled. 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,
LO. Dow
W. DEAN P
E
Executive Diséctho
Enclosure
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 | CY2010 | 00446-10
You finally impliedly requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") counseling entry dated 25 January 2008. 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. Further, the (enclosure Board was unable to find your promotion would not have been delayed, had the results of the inspection, which was conducted on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13802-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 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 | CY2014 | NR9149 14
Tt is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the contested fitness report for 1 July 2010 to-16 May 2011. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2014. 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...
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 | CY2009 | 04512-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 December 2009. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8499 13
You requested removing the fitness report for 14 February to 10 June 2011 and your two rebuttals, each dated 8 June 2011, to the service record page 11 ("Administrative Remarks (1070)") entries dated 25 May and 1 June 2011, respectively. Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2015. Since the Board found insufficient grounds to remove either of your failures of selection for promotion, it had...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09717-10
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the: burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06382-09
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. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis ‘to remove those documents, it had no grounds to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04984-09
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...