Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05490-06
Original file (05490-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS

Docket No: 5490-06
3 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 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.

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.

August 1996 after more than 11 years of prior active service. A
special court-martial convened on 13 March 1997 and found you
guilty of uttering nine worthless checks totaling over $1300,
between October and November 1996. The court sentenced you to a
forfeiture of $1300 and reduction in rank from staff sergeant
(SSGT; E-6) to sergeant (SGT; E-5). Subsequently; on 19 August
1997 you were honorably discharged by reason of expiration of
term of service.

The Board considered your contention that a special court-martial
could not reduce you from SSGT to SGT. This is incorrect since
the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Rules for Courts—
Martial state that a special court-martial has the authority to
take such action. Had nonjudicial punishment been imposed for
your offenses, a reduction in rank could not have been part of
that punishment. The Board therefore concluded that no
corrective action is warranted. 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 PFE
Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04764-01

    Original file (04764-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The command investigation recommended that CAPT 0 be the subject of a non-punitive letter of caution since he knew or reasonably should have known that the public horseplay occurring in his platoon could develop into hazing. k. In his application, Petitioner contends that although three Further, there is no Marines received NJP for the incident at issue, one of these Marines was not reduced in rank. Lastly, the opinion noted that Petitioner indistinguisable; the By Petitioner's own did,not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07468-98

    Original file (07468-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found that you reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 28 November 1985 for six years as a SGT (E-5). Rules for Courts-Martial A promulgating order (RCM) the Board carefully reviewed In its review of your application, your record for any mitigating factors which might warrant removing the general court-martial from your record and restoring you to your original date of rank of SGT. the Board noted your contention to the effect that the general court-martial is nullified because the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08292-01

    Original file (08292-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found that you reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 17 January 1997 for four years as a staff sergeant (E-6) after over 11 years of prior active service. She is However, On 13 August 2001 the Commander, Albany, GA, endorsed your request as follows: Marine Corps Logistics Base, (H) has served our Marine Corps well over Her record book prior to her recent conviction "Staff Sergeant 17 years. the Enlisted Career Planning and Retention Manual, and commitment" and "Must have no...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02447-00

    Original file (02447-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    discharged on 24 February 1997 and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 4 reenlistment code to individuals who are not recommended for reenlistment. 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 | 08054-01

    Original file (08054-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In his application, Petitioner contends that it was unfair to impose NJP for the four day period of UA because bailed myself out and would have if I knew I was going to be charged..." He points out the statement of the SSGT to the effect that he would be placed on leave and states that this individual was unavailable during the NJP process. together with a copy of Caron cannot go along with the recommendation of the majority d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01272

    Original file (MD02-01272.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-LCpl, USMC Docket No. MD02-01272 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020903, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In the Applicant’s issue statement to the Board he denies guilt of the same charges that he plead guilty to in his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501179

    Original file (MD0501179.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-Pvt, USMC Docket No. Relief denied.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07166-01

    Original file (07166-01.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 January to 2 February 1996. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 30 July 2002 with enclosures.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 concluding that no further correction to your fitness report record...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD01-00282A

    Original file (FD01-00282A.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD01-00282-A GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable and for a change in the Reason and Authority for the discharge and the RE Code. In her submission to the DRB, the applicant states her belief that she was not given sufficient opportunity to overcome her “financial situation” The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge was appropriate given the nature of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07787-01

    Original file (07787-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 February 2000, Petitioner, a sergeant, pay grade The Petitioner responded by saying "that the conversation was originally lieutenarnr colonel and if the captain was During the the Petitioner was told by one of the captains, in of E-S, was discussing an issue with a lieutenant colonel. The following Monday, Petitioner was directed by the Petitioner was advised of his Article 31 rights; executive officer to provide a statement, and he did. words, Pet for Captai request of a Petitioner...