Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05232-06
Original file (05232-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
         WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100       

                                            

                                            
CRS
Docket No: 5232-06
28 June 2007





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 20 June 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 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 enlisted in the Navy on 28 July 1999. On 30 March 2001 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for making a false official statement and attempted assault. The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $200 per month for two months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, and reduction from petty officer second class (OS2; E-5) to petty officer third class (OS3; E-4), which was suspended for six months.

The Board rejected your unsubstantiated contention that the NJP of 30 March 2001 was based on unfair and false charges. The Board presumed that your commanding officer acted reasonably in concluding, based on the evidence before him, that you committed the charged offenses. Clearly your commanding officer was in the best position to resolve the factual issues and to impose punishment. 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 03659-02

    Original file (03659-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record On 30 July 2001 you appealed the NJP based on an investigation into the chain of custody of the urine samples, and a negative analysis of a hair sample you submitted to a private laboratory after the NJP. The Board concurred With regard to your contentions pertaining to the chain of custody of the urine samples, sample, the Board concurred with the remarks in the commanding officer's endorsement of your NJP appeal to the effect there was no chain of custody problem with analysis...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03392-01

    Original file (03392-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2002. The members of the chain of command were present, made statements and were available to answer questions . He then told LT HI who then called Ms. D. The Board also considered the statement of the retired chief petty officer who stated that you were not derelict in your duties while you were treating him and that he did not see any disrespect.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04079-04

    Original file (04079-04.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.You reenlisted in the Navy on 13 June 2001 as a petty officer second class (DK2; E-5). However,...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 07178-01

    Original file (07178-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    contended that the initial NJP, at which the commanding officer' referred the charges to a court-martial, imposed punishment and that the subsequent proceedings was double jeopardy. (His) case was originally referred to a summary The case was then Charges were . out, in effect, that your relief from maintenance duties and The commanding officer stated that he made it in the case of the junior He believed He also pointed 2 assignment to the training division was an administrative action and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09213-05

    Original file (09213-05.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 enlisted in the Navy on 27 June 1984. Clearly your commanding officer was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00318-08

    Original file (00318-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2009. 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 00537-02

    Original file (00537-02.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. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 10 May 2001 you submitted an appeal to The punishment imposed was a On 2 June 2001, your suspended separation action was vacated based on your continued misconduct, however, final action of the separation was held in...