DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket No:NR06094-13
15 July 2013
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Tos Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF yagiieeneimmiilie i:
Rh a ai ables
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 3 Aug 2012 with attachments
2) Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) memo dtd
22 April 2013
(3) Subject's naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, an enlisted member of the
United States Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board
requesting, in effect, that he be reinstated to E-7/GySgt with an
effective date of rank of 1 March 2011, and that his letter of
revocation and page 11 entries referring to his E-7 promotion
revocation be removed.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Storz, Green and Chapman,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11
July 2013 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 this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 24 July 1996.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, Petitioner was selected for promotion
to E-7 by the Gunnery Sergeant (GySgt) Selection Board which
convened on 13 April 2010.
c. On 19 February 2011, the commanding officer (CO) of 31°
Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) convened a command investigation
to look into the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged
misconduct committed by Petitioner during Exercise Cobra Gold
2011, conducted in the Kingdom of Thailand.
d. On 20 February 2011, Petitioner was relieved of his
duties as the platoon sergeant due to the CO losing trust and
confidence in his ability to lead. Additionally, on 24 February
2011, the CO requested that Petitioner’s promotion to GySgt be
held in abeyance pending the outcome of the investigation.
e. On 26 February 2011, the report was completed and it
opined that Petitioner “lacked both the integrity and moral
courage to make the unpopular decision to prohibit his unit from
consuming alcohol and denying off base liberty”. Further, the
report recommended that Petitioner be relieved for cause as the
senior noncommissioned officer in charge.
f. On 8 March 2011, Petitioner’s CO concurred with the
findings of the investigation. Furthermore, the CO recommended
that Petitioner’s promotion to GySgt be revoked, that he be
issued a revocation letter and two page 11 counseling entries
dated 11 and 27 April 2011, regarding removing his promotion
recommendation. On 16 August 2011, Petitioner’s name was removed
from the FY 2010 Gunnery Sergeant Selection List by the
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
g. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office
having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in
Petitioner’s application, has commented to the effect that his
request has merit and warrants favorable action.
The Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Enlisted Promotion Section
(MMPR-2) states that the revocation was used as a form of
punishment in the absence of any substantiated misconduct or
punitive measures taken by the command. His command publicized
in its request for revocation that its intention was to offer him
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for his alleged offenses in addition
to his adverse fitness report for relief. However, his NJP never
occurred and his fitness report has since been removed by HQMC.
Therefore, MMPR-2 recommends favorable relief.
CONCLUSION :
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the favorable recommendation in enclosure
(2), the Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants
favorable action. The Board notes that since HQOMC recommended
favorable action based on the all of the facts in the case, and
that his adverse fitness report has already been removed, this
case warrants the relief requested. Therefore, in view of the
above, the Board recommends the following corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing his
revocation letter dated 16 August 2011.
b. That Petitioner’s record be further corrected by removing
his adverse page 11 entries dated 11 and 27 April 2011.
c. That Petitioner be advanced to E-7/GySgt with an effective
date of 1 March 2011.
e. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating
to the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed, or
completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such
entries or material be added to the record in the future.
f. 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.
CFs
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN BRIAN J. GEORGE
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
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 723.6 (e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
Q\. Nos, P-
W. DEAN P R
Executive Wi tor
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 | 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 | 03999-10
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 fitness report for 8 December 2007 to 8 August 2008, a copy of which is at Tab A. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing all remaining references to his NJP of 7 August 2008, to include the following: {1) Unit Punishment Book entry (2) Second sentence,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06554-07
That board considered Petitioner for promotion, but did not select him.d. Based on the findings and action of the PERB, the Board concludes that the marginal fitness reports should not have been part of Petitioner’s naval record when he was considered for promotion in 2006.Whether Petitioner would have been selected for promotion in 2006 or not (without the marginal fitness reports) cannot be known and is largely a matter of conjecture. Moreover, when asked to provide substantive comments...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01607-07
On April 15, 2005, Petitioner, through counsel, submitted an application to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) seeking removal of the January 1, 2001 to July 7,2Docket No. 01607-072001 fitness report, removal of naval records pertaining to the NJP and a remedial promotion board See enclosure (4)g. Petitioner’s request was bifurcated. Here, Petitioner did not take any action to have his fitness report removed until 15 April 2005, well after the dates of the Selection Boards...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00098-01
The Board did not consider this request, because this investigation report is not in his record. Petitioner also argued that the Finally, he asserted the reviewing h. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case, reflecting their decision to deny his request to remove the contested fitness report. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (7) reflects that both the contested adverse fitness report and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00605-06
By correspondence dated 14 November 2003 (copy at Tab B), Petitioner was advised that his selection by the CY 2003 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board had been revoked for unspecified “unprofessional conduct and poor judgment” exhibiting failure to maintain the high standards expected of a Marine Corps staff noncommissioned officer.e. Enclosure (7) documents that a member of the Board’s staff contacted the HQMC Enlisted Promotion Section and was informed that had Petitioner’s selection by the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09077-07
By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03973-01
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 1 lg (“Administrative Remarks (1070)“) counseling entry dated 12 July 1999. (5), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by removing the service record page llg (“Adarministrative...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10290-08
The front page of his fitness report for 18 March to 25 July 2008, a copy of which is at Tab B, verifies he had a first class PFT score of 205. d. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps Enlisted Promotion Section commented to the effect Petitioner’s request should be denied, as he “chose not to take his PFT making him unqualified for extension or reenlistment.” e. Enclosure (3) is Petitioner’s reply to enclosure (2), detailing the circumstances that prevented him from taking...