DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 4288-06
27 February 2007

This is in reference to your application of your naval record.

You requested, in effect, that your captain date of rank and effective date be adjusted to reflect you were considered and selected below the promotion zone by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1988 Limited Duty Officer Captain Selection Board, as you were recommended for accelerated promotion in your fitness report for 6 July. to 4 September 1987. In the alternative, you requested that your captain date of rank and effective date be adjusted from 1 September 1990 to 1 December 1989, to reflect selection by the FY 1990 Captain Selection Board, vice the FY 1991 Captain Selection Board, as your redesignation as an unrestricted officer came too late for you to be considered in the promotion zone by the earlier promotion board. You made this request in your previous case, docket number 9899-91, which was denied on 9 April 1992. In your current case, you added a new request to adjust your major and lieutenant colonel dates of rank and effective dates accordingly, to 1 December 1995 and 1 January 2001, respectively.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2007. 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 current 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Headquarters Marine Corps Promotion -Branch, both dated 26 October 2006, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letters dated 11 December 2006 with enclosures and 12 December 2006.

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 opinions. Accordingly, the Board again 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 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,

Enclosures
w.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STAThS MARINE CORPS
	HARRY LEE HALL, 17 LEJEUNE ROAD	TO:
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
	QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134.5104	INjR~Pj’~RJFfR
		MMPR
		OCT 2 62006

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
	Ref:	(a)	MMER Route Sheet of 31Aug06
		(b)	ALMAR	202/89
		(c)	ALMAR	015/90
		(d)	SECNAVINST 1210.6A
		(e)	Title	10 USC

1.	Reference (a) requested an advisory opinion in the case of

2.	Opinion. We recommend the Board disapprove Applicant’s request contained in the Reference.

3.	Background

a.	Applicant was designated a limited duty officer (LDO) (temporary) in the grade of first lieutenant on 1 May 1987.

b.	Reference (b) announced the results of the Restricted Officer Force Structure Review. This Review validated billets and grades of the Marine Corps’ restricted officer force and provided guidelines for the management of the restricted officer force. As a result of the review, all validated First Lieutenant LDO billets were to be redesignated for unrestricted officer, warrant officer, or staff noncommissioned officer, depending on requirement.

c.	The FY90 USMC Captain Promotion Selection Board convened on 11 April 1989. Applicant was not eligible for this board as he was not yet redesignated for unrestricted officer.

d.	Applicant was selected for redesignation for unrestricted officer as announced in reference (c) . He was redesignated an unrestricted officer effective 4 April 1990.

e.	The FY91 USMC Captain Promotion Selection Board convened on 11 April 1990, one week after Applicant was redesignated an
Subj:	ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT II~ ~~fhU~in~USMC (RET)

unrestricted officer. Applicant’s lineal standing placed him “Above Zone Not Previously Considered.” He was selected for promotion and was subsequently promoted with a date of rank of 1 September 1990.

4.	Analysis. Applicant believes he was forced to change his career path and the process by which he was redesignated was in violation of reference (d) by denying him the opportunity to be looked at for promotion with his peers.

a.	Recommendations from senior leadership and the Officer Force Management Review Panel identified requirements within the officer force for manpower modifications. As a result, Applicant was given the choice of remaining an LDO First Lieutenant without an opportunity for future promotions or redesignate as an unrestricted officer, warrant officer, or staff noncommissioned officer. Applicant decided that his best option was to redesignate as an unrestricted officer.

b.	In accordance with reference (d) , Applicant retained his grade, date of rank, and lineal precedence upon redesignation as an unrestricted officer.

c.	Applicant was subsequently considered by the earliest possible selection board convened to consider officers of his category for promotion to captain.

d.	In accordance with reference (e), Applicant was promoted to the next higher grade in the order in which his name appeared on the promotion list for his grade and competitive category.

5.	Conclusion. Accordingly, for the reasons noted, we recommend that the requested relief be disapproved.

6.	Point of contact is Mrs. Ritchie at (703) 784-9707.

Ur~ctt~
W.	MCWATERS
By direction