MeO Am TRACAT moc Thi ! my
Wor PAN Petter Me? HE NAN .
Mo aARMN FOP CORRECTION ¢ yE WAV AL RECC ROS
701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket No:NRO9513-13
2 September 2014
This is in reply to your request for reconsideration in
September 2013. A veview of our files reveals that in 1986, you
petitioned this Board seeking the removal of your summary court-
martial (SCM) for an unauthorized absence in excess of 4 days,
removal of your fitiess report for 1 December 1982 to 25
February 1983, remoral of your commanding officer’s letter of 25
February 1983 requejsting your relief for cause, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps! professional standards letter to
you of 13 May 1983...
In April 1991, your] case was partially approved, see enclosure
(1). Now, over 20 years later, in September 2013, you requested
a reconsideration cf your case to include a reinstatement to
E-8/1STSGT.*
However, as explained in the Board’s previous letter, a case may
only be reconsidered upon submission of new and material
evidence. New evicence is defined as evidence not previously
considered by the }oard and not reasonably available to you at
the time of your pievious application. Evidence is considered
to be material if |.t is likely to have a substantial effect on
the outcome of the Board's decision. Therefore, on 2 September
2014, a three-memb:r panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting 11 executive session, considered your
reconsideration reyuest. 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 applicaticn, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and pdlicies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC)
meme 1070 JB Gf 72 Aug 2014, & COPY of which is being provided
to you, see enclosure (25) «
1 tn 1983, you had been selected to E-8/1STSGT, but your command sent a message to the
Commandant of the Marin: Corps requesting your name pe removed from the selection list
due to your misconduct.
nfter careful and conscientious consideration of the entiie
LTS
record, the Board found that the evidence you submitted was
insufficient to esta2lish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. | In making this determination, the Board
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
In addition, the Board noted that in your previous BCNR case, Le
erated thar alrhough you were granted some relief, you were ho
longer eligible for promotion to E-8/1STSGT due to your
misconduct, (UA). Therefore, since you provided no new or
material informatior to mitigate and/or substantiate your
UA, your applicatior has been denied. The names and votes of
the members of the yanel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted thaj. the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8308 14
However, you allege that you did not receive a copy of the partially favorable advisory opinion (2/0), since you did not agree with the approval dates. As explained in the Board’s previous partial approval letter, a case may only be reconsidered upon submission of new and material evidence. On 14 July 2014, your reconsideration request was approved.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5667 14
on 4 September 2014, you have requested a reconsideration of your case. evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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 | CY2013 | NR2999 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 18 September 2014. The Board also considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 18 February 2014 and the advisory opinion from HQMC dated 3 July 2034, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6179 14
This request was denied on 30 September 2013. #, three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 22 January 2015. 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 | CY2001 | 02041-01
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the record and 02 USMC He petitioned the porting Senior fitness report of 980831 to 990731. requests removal of his failures of selection. Performance Evaluation Review Board He failed selection He petitioned the (PERB) for removal of the rting Senior fitness report of 980831 to 990630. equests removal of his failures of selection. Head, Personnel Management Support was removed from the OMPF on 5 October emphatically states that the...
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 | CY2007 | 02719-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2719-0725 June 2007This is in reference to your letter dated 14 March 2007 with enclosures requesting correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness report for 17 August to 31 December 2004 be modified by changing section I (reporting senior (RS) comments) to reflect “Promote at soonest...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1703 14
In your previous case, docket number 10449-08, the Board denied this relief on 23 January 2009. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 10 April 2014. 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 | CY1998 | 07639-98
The new statements at enclosures (2) through (4) of your current application, among these a statement from the reviewing officer who acted on your fitness report at issue, did not persuade them that this report should be removed. 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. Subsequently, Major Performance Evaluation Review Board for removal from the record of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06266-10
Your previous request, docket number 12841-09, again seeking to remove the original fitness report and replace it with the revised report, or just remove the original report, and remove your failures of selection to lieutenant colonel, which then included failures of selection by the FY 2005 and 2006 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, was administratively closed on 25 May 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered...