From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:     Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:   REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO   
  
 Ref:   (a) Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
 (b) MCO P1400.32C 
 
Encl:   (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
        (2) HQMC memo 1400/3 MMPR-2 of 3 Aug 20 
        (3) Subject’s naval record 
 
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected to reflect rank to Sergeant (Sgt) E5 vice Corporal (Cpl) E4 prior to separation from active duty effective 9 June 2002.  
                                              
2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 21 January 2021 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, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, 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, found that, before applying to this Board, he exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.  The Board made the following findings: 
 
    a.  On 10 June 1997, Petitioner entered active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps. 
 
    b.  On 1 November 2000, Petitioner was promoted to Cpl/E4.  Petitioner’s primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) is 6484. 
 
    c.  On 1 November 2001, Petitioner met time in grade and time in service requirements for promotion to Sgt/E5.  The required cutting score for 1 November 2001 promotion to Sgt/E5 was 1657; the Petitioner’s October through December 2001 quarterly composite score was 1525. 
 
    d.  On 1 December 2001, Petitioner’s PMOS (6484) was closed for promotion selection. 
 
    e.  On 1 January 2002 the required cutting score for promotion to Sgt/E5 was 1620; Petitioner’s January through March 2002 quarterly composite score was 1596. 
 
    f.  On 1 February 2002 the required cutting score for promotion to Sgt/E5 was 1608; Petitioner’s composite score was 1596. 
 
    g.  On 1 March 2002 the required cutting score for promotion to Sgt/E5 was 1596; Petitioner’s composite score was 1596 and there is no derogatory evidence in Petitioner’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) that would have prevented promotion to Sgt/E5. 
 
    h.  On 1 April 2002 the required cutting score for promotion to Sgt/E5 was 1629; Petitioner’s April, May, and June 2002 quarterly composite score was 1577. 
 
    i.  On 28 April 2006, Marine Corps Total Force indicated:  Rifle qualification S38 (Sharpshooter) effective 1 September 2001; Duty Limitation code 0; Strength Category code 0; and Duty Status code 1.  Note:  There is no record of service contained in OMPF reflecting assigned proficiency and conduct marks; nor is there any records containing physical fitness data. 
 
    j.  On 1 May 2002, Petitioner’s PMOS (6484) was closed for promotion selection. 
 
    k.  On 1 June 2002 the required cutting score for promotion to Sgt/E5 is 1612; Petitioner’s composite score was 1577. 
 
    l.  On 9 June 2002, Petitioner released from active duty and transferred to U.S. Marine Corp Reserve Individual Ready Reserve with a Reserve obligation termination date of 27 June 2004. 
 
    m.  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 the request has no merit and warrants unfavorable action.   
                                
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action.  The Board determined though the office having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner’s application was correct in their assessment the Petitioner was not eligible based on being placed in promotion restriction status. No comments were given concerning the validity of that status or the lack of required documentation per reference (b).  The Board concluded the Petitioner’s service record did not contain the required information that would have prevented the Petitioner’s promotion to Sgt/E5 for the 1 March 2002 promotion month; therefore, relief is warranted. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that: 

Petitioner was promoted to Sgt/E5 effective 1 March 2002. 
 
Petitioner’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty dated 6 June 2002 is corrected to reflect:  Block 4a SGT, Block 4b E5, and Block 12h 20020301. 
 
Note:  Defense Finance and Accounting Service will complete an audit of Petitioner’s pay records to determine retroactive difference in pay and allowances entitlement. 
                                                            
A copy of this Report of Proceedings will be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. 
 
4.  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. 
 
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 Regulations, 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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.