Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01927-06
Original file (01927-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
 WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



        
         CRS
                                              Docket No: 1927-06
                                                                                           6 October 2006







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 section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, Considered your application on 13 September 2006. 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.
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.
The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 3 September 1992 after 14 years of prior active service. The record reflects that on 13 January 1993 you received nonjudicial punishment for driving while drunk. The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $200 per month for two months and reduction in rate from petty officer first class (AD1; E-6) to petty officer second class (AD2; E-5). On 30 November 1994 you were transferred to the Fleet Reserve in the rate of AD2.
The Board considered your contention you should have been allowed to retire as an AD2, but found it insufficient to warrant restoration to that rate. In this regard, the Board could not find any mitigating circumstances sufficient for restoration, given the seriousness of the offense. Accordingly, your application has 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 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,



 W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
         
























Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03479-03

    Original file (03479-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 July 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. 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 | CY2003 | 04638-03

    Original file (04638-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 1430 Ser 8 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 | CY2006 | 06218-06

    Original file (06218-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulation and policies.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 injusticeThe Board found that YOU reenlisted in the Navy on 15 November 2002 after more than three years of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09115-05

    Original file (09115-05.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 2007. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your alcohol abuse and two disciplinary actions. 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 | CY2006 | 05457-06

    Original file (05457-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.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.The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 7 November 1983 after three years of prior...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01897-06

    Original file (01897-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.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.The Board found that on 17 February 1998 you reenlisted in the Navy after nearly ten years of prior...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01136-06

    Original file (01136-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He then served in the Navy Reserve, earning six qualifying years for reserve retirement between 1994 and 2000. On 14 December 2003, he reenlisted in the Navy Reserve for six years. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record to document the Board's action and so all future reviewers will understand the reasons for the change in the retirement grade.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00272-07

    Original file (00272-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 July 2006 your commanding officer recommended to the Navy Personnel Command (NAVPERSCOM) that you not be reenlisted. However, given the available evidence, the Board concluded that the commanding officer acted reasonably in concluding that you committed the offense and that nonjudicial punishment was appropriate. 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 | CY2006 | 11317-06

    Original file (11317-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The restoration of those qualifications is an administrative matter within the jurisdiction of your commanding officer. 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 | CY2006 | 07623-06

    Original file (07623-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2008. 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...