DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
DIC
Docket No. NR5420-14
3 Mar 15
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 2552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
2 March 2015. 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 furnished by MCRC memo 5000 G-7 dated
18 December 2014, a copy of which was provided to you on 31 January
2015, and is being provided to you now.
after careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record,
the Board found that the evidence subm: 5 s insufiivesent te
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments
contained in the advisory opinion. You agreed via Statement of
Understanding on 15 January 2011, and via DD Form 1966 (Record of
Military Processing -Armed Forces of the United States) on 20 Jun
2011, to modify your program description to reflect UW - Marine Corps
Security Forces (PRP), a 5 year program, vice PN - Open Contract a 4
year program. Moreover, upon graduation from School of Infantry on 22
February 2012, you were transferred to Marine Barracks, Washington, DC
for duty. Finally, on 1 November 2013 you transferred to a”
Battalion, 5th Marines, Camp Pendleton, California for duty. Currently
your End of Active Service (EAS)/End of Current Contract (ECG) » as 19
June 2016. Accordingly, your application to reduce your contract term
to reflect 4 years, as well as your request for a personal appearance
before the Board, have 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 evidence within one
year from the date of the Board's decision. New evidence is evidence
Docket No. NR5420-14
the Board prior to making its decision in
it is important to keep in mind that a
hes to all official records.
not previously considered by
this case. In this regard,
presumption of regularity attac
n official naval
for a correction of a
he existence of
applicant to demonstrate t
Daeg itll
pugtTeS..
Consequently, when applying
record, the burden is on the
eoibabla weterial error Or in
Pp Gteria.s CLrLCl es +s
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosure: MCRC memo 5000 G-7 dtd 18 Dec 14
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6005 14
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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. NR6005-14 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 | NR8441 13
Furthermore, the Board concurred with the advisory opinion that you “may request to reenlist in the Marine Corps Reserve through: — -a Prior Service Recruiter provided you meet all the requirements . Accordingly, your application has been denied. 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 | NR1774 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2014. The Board carefully considered all of the arguments raised in your application and the evidence your counsel submitted regarding those claims. 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 | CY2004 | 03925-04
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 the applicable naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the fitness reports for 1 January to 1 April 2002, 2 April to 22 June 2002, 23 June to31 December 2002, 1 January to 30 June 2003, and 1 July to26 August 2003. We do not, however, recommend that his voided MOS 8411 be reinstated and the recoupment of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1221 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2014. in addition, the Board consigered the advisory opinion furnished by MCRC memo 1610 G-i dated 30 April 2014, a COPY of which 1s attached. Consequentiy, 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 | CY2014 | NR5624 14
Pursuant to its regulations, the Board determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. His transfer fitness report from RS Harrisburg, for 1 January to 13 July 2013 (copy at enclosure (1)), was fully favorable, even though the reporting senior, the Commanding Officer (CO), RS Harrisburg, requested Petitioner’s RFC on 12 April 2013, and the reviewing officer, the CO, First Marine Corps District, favorably endorsed the request on 26...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08183-00
Your request to change your sergeant date of rank to 9 October 1998 was not considered, as the Marine Corps Total Force System already reflects that date. 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. However, they sa 9 his date of rank is MCRC; that MCRC set his date of rank as 1 Jan 95; and that unless BCNR rules otherwise, MMPR-2...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03815-06
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 material error or injustice. Members CONSUBPAY stopped upon transfer for not meeting the requirements of Ref(a).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5733 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2014. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by MCRC Memo 5400 G-3/0A dated Qa a copy of which is attached. 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 | 05214-98
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 12 and 16 April 1999, copies of which are attached. Until 1 September 1995, as a member of the Ready Reserve, and as such, W= be considered by promotion - - selection boards. A complete review of Lieutenant Commander record reveals that there were no properly considered during either failure of selection per reference (c).