Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 01591-04
Original file (01591-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
         WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100        


                 
CRS
Docket No: 1591-04
21 March 2005




This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the United States Code secti o n 1552.

A three-member pa el of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting o n executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2005. Your allegations of error and injustice were re v iewed in accordance with administrative regulations and p r ocedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documenta r y material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your nay 1 record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to e s tablish the existence of probable material error or injustice

The Board found t ha t you enlisted in the Navy on 23 September 1986. The record r eflects that on 3 May 1990 you received nonjudicial punis m ent for use of cocaine or methamphetamine and communicating a t eat to another Sailor. The punishment imposed consisted of resection and forfeitures of $300 pr month for two months. Subsequently , on 22 September 1990 you were honorably discharged at the expiration of your enlistment.

In your application , you contend that you received nonjudicial punishment for bei n g at a party where drugs were used, and that you did not threat n another Sailor. However, in the absence of any evidence to th e contrary, the Board concluded that the commanding officer acted reasonably in concluding that you committed the offe n ses and NJP was appropriate. Accordingly, your application h s been denied. The names and votes of the members of the pan 1 will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted th a t the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action c a nnot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider i s decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, i is important to keep in mind that a presumption of re g ularity 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 prob a ble material error or injustice.

Sincerely,




W. DEAN PFIEFFER
                                                                        Executive Director


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07835-01

    Original file (07835-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2002. The Board believed that a record which included three nonjudicial punishments and a conviction by a special court-martial was sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. In addition, regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals serving in pay grade E-2 on completion of an extended period of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07861-02

    Original file (07861-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2003. 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. On 8 September 1958 you submitted a written request for an administrative discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06367-01

    Original file (06367-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2002. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given the serious nature of your misconduct and since you r~cnived four...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07504-01

    Original file (07504-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 March 2002. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08100-01

    Original file (08100-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Mr. Beckett, Mr. Leeman and Mr. Taylor, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 16 April 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. In any case, the Board concludes that the bad conduct discharge should now be recharacterized to general as a matter of clemency. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's naval record c. That...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06562-02

    Original file (06562-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    \ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2003. 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. On 29 January 2002, the commanding officer recommended that you be honorably discharged by reason of your admission, and advised you of the right...

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00032

    Original file (FD2005-00032.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW B o r n HEARTNf2 p w r n n n TYPE GEN COWSEL YES No PERSONAL APPEARANCE X NAME O F COUNSEL AND O R ORGANIZATION RECORD REVIEW I ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION O F COUNSEL MEMBER SITTING WDEX NUMBER A67.90 ISSUES A92.35 A02.17 A92.21 A92.19 A94.05 A02.13 , &BIBITS v*+ 1 I ORDER APPOMTMG THE BOARD S U B M ~ ~ ~ ~ I O IQE ~gw:~ I I APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD PERSONAL APPEARANCE I TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE I ^ HEARING...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03812-01

    Original file (03812-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2002. 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 this regard, the Board noted that you were the subject of five disciplinary actions and two civil convictions within a period of less than three years.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00579-01

    Original file (00579-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that your reenlistment code be changed from "RE-3" to "RE-1" (the Marine Corps has neither code). It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has changed your reenlistment code to RE-3C (when directed by CMC or when not eligible and disqualifying factor is not covered by any other code). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2002.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06329-02

    Original file (06329-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the Board concurred with the Accordingly, your application has been The names and votes of the members of the panel will be In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all such as your youth and immaturity potentially mitigating factors, and the contention that you should be reinstated since your positive urinalysis for ecstacy was flawed, based on a newspaper However, the Board concluded that article on Navy drug testing. The Department of Defense (D Progra...