Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05465-07
Original file (05465-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

CRS
                                                                                Docket No: 5 4 65-07
                                                                                 29 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 27 June 2007. Your allegations of error an injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings o this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in s upport 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 materi al error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 24 Novemb e r 2004. On 22 September 2005 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for committing an indecent act with a female by engaging in sexual relations on a public beach. The punishment impose was a forfeiture of one-half months pay per month for two months, restriction and extra duty, and reduction from seaman apprentice (SA; E-2) to seaman recruit (SR; E-l). Subsequently, you received a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to sexual perversion. You were assigned a reentry code of RE-
The Board rejected your unsubstantiated contention that the NJP of 22 September 2005 was based on unfair and false charges. The Board presumed that your commanding officer acted reasonable in concluding, based on the evidence before him, that you committed the charged offenses. Clearly your commanding officer was n the best position to resolve the factual issues and to impose punishment.
Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 re e ntry code when an individual is discharged due to misconduct. S i nce
 you have been treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board could not find an error or injustice assignment of your reentry code.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to ha Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and evidence or other matter not previously considered by the In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official record Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material e rror or injustice in the and request




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 | 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 | CY2005 | 08967-05

    Original file (08967-05.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his endorsement on your appeal CSG2 analyzed the evidence concerning the charge of indecent assault and stated that he believed a preponderance of the evidence supported his finding of guilty. He conceded that the evaluation at issue was erroneously prepared and indicated that action would be taken to file a corrected evaluation but strongly recommended that your application for advancement to chief petty officer be denied. The opinion concluded by stating that given the no misconduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501108

    Original file (ND0501108.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Commanding Officer’s comments: “I am convinced, based on the preponderance of evidence, that sexual harassment was committed by CM2 L_ (Applicant), in violation of article 92 of the UCMJ nonjudicial punishment was imposed on CM2 L_ (Applicant) as a result of his kissing a female seaman apprentice against her will in the workplace on two occasions. A request for a waiver...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05850-09

    Original file (05850-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 2010. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was snsufficient 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600343

    Original file (ND0600343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-CS1, USNDocket No. Typed version does not reflect suspended separation for 6 months.040910: Letter of Applicant deficiencies submitted from Applicant counsel.040916: Commanding Officer, USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47), recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and Family Advocacy Program Failure. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05149-99

    Original file (05149-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    M&RA noted specifically that Petitioner's relationship with the On 23 June 1999, the petty officer Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASN(M&RA)) directed Petitioner's discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service. this relief is neither available Accordingly, a Petitioner supports his request for an honorable characterization of service with essentially four arguments: b. one, his discharge was improper because it was not based on...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 04262-06

    Original file (04262-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 5 July 2006, a copy of which is attached, and your rebuttal.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. For the remainder of relief requested Applicant fails to provide substantial evidence of probable material error or injustice. After...