Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03746-06
Original file (03746-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-Si 00


 BJG
 Docket No:3746-06
 18 September 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 7 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 9 June 2006, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 28 July 2006 with enclosure.
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 opinion. The Board found the contested entry was sufficiently clear that the reasons for counseling you were a perceived deficiency in judgment, regarding your relationship with an under-age female, and your having made inconsistent statements in the
 investigation of that relationship. The Board was unable to find the evidence was insufficient to support the entry, noting that strict rules of evidence do not apply. Finally, your undated rebuttal to the entry did not persuade the Board that the counseling was unwarranted. In view of the above, 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 | CY2010 | 07374-10

    Original file (07374-10.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 May 2011. The rec ra reflects that on 17 May 2007 you were subsequently found guilty of only one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman for the period cited “between on or about November 2004 and on or about May 2005." The Board concluded that your commanding officer's decision to impose the foregoing NUP, and the punishment imposed,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3737 13

    Original file (NR3737 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removal of a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) held on 28 May 2008, retirement in the rank of commander (pay grade 0o- '5), and removal of two fitness reports for 5 October 2006 to 18 April 2007, and for 17 August 2007 to 8 January 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 July 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02241-06

    Original file (02241-06.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 1 September 2005 at age 17. On 14 September 2005 the discharge authority...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03358-06

    Original file (03358-06.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 1 May 2003 at age 21. Although you served without disciplinary incident,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08153-07

    Original file (08153-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 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. Further, the Board concluded that your diagnosed chronic Dyshydrotic eczema was sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11128-09

    Original file (11128-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    , The Board concluded that in view of your failure to disclose your pre-service history of posttraumatic stress disorder when you applied for enlistment, it would not be in the interest of justice to correct your record to show that you were retired by reason of physical disability due to posttraumatic stress disorder. In the Board’s opinion, the provisions of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, part 4.129 (38CFR4.129) required VA rating officials to apply a convalescent rating, rather...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08752-07

    Original file (08752-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02515-06

    Original file (02515-06.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 7 January 1982 at age 17. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03855-08

    Original file (03855-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 2008. The Board found no requirement for a page 11 entry, regarding your promotion revocation, in MCO P1400.32C, the applicable version of the Enlisted Promotions Manual (this requirement appears in paragraph 1204.5 of MCO P1400.32D, dated 11 May 2006). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08377-06

    Original file (08377-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 2006. 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...