CEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
me ee eee : 2 -—ee
wea We CORR OO TG OT iA AL Te he Ne Nar ht ee
mn
7O! S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2450
os
JSR
Docket No. NR6179-14
22 January 2015
This is in reference to your application dated 10 March 2014, seeking
reconsideration of your previous application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code, section 1552. In your previous case, docket number
4170-13, you requested remedial consideration for promotion to
master sergeant from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Master Sergeant
Selection Board or the first eligible remedial board. This request
was denied on 30 September 2013. You now request remedial
consideration for promotion from the FY 2007 through 2012 Master
sergeant Selection Boards.
#, three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 22 January
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, the Board's file on your
prior case, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies. The Board also considered the advisory opinion from
Headquarters Marine Corps dated 12 November 2014, a copy of which
is attached, and copies of your previously removed fitness reports:
for 1 July 2003 to 26 April 2004, 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 and
1 July 2010 to 22 February 2011.
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 orinjustice. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments
contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, the Board@ again
Aye,
voted to deny relief. 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
not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision
in this case. 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,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10729-09
* 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 found that you offered nothing new and material regarding your transfer to the FMCR except your contention, in paragraph 5 of your letter dated 24 June 2009, that you submitted a request, never received by the HOMC. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09126-10
You requested promotion to master gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-9}) from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Reserve Master Gunnery Sergeant Selection 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, and the Board’s file on your prior case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09296-08
You also impliedly requested reconsideration of your previous request to adjust your gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-7) date of rank and effective date to reflect selection by the Calendar Year (CY) 2001 or 2002 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, rather than CY 2003. While the Board did consider your having been selected for promotion to master sergeant the first time you were considered with a corrected record to be new and material evidence in support of backdating your promotion to gunnery...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9152 14
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 5 April to 30 November 2007, and you impliedly requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 20615 Major Selection Board. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in finding your selection by the FY 2015 promotion board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had reflected the modifications CMC has directed to the fitness report at issue. Consequently, when:...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10714-06
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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by cMc memorandum 1400/3 NMPR-2, 19 December 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8180 14
Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8180 14
Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24. 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 error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10584-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2008. In this connection, the Board particularly noted that you were not selected when you received remedial consideration for promotion from the FY 2005 and 2006 Master Sergeant Selection Boards; and the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion dated 29 April 2008, except to note you actually had only one observed gunnery sergeant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02503-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 January 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1960 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 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, 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...