DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
‘Docket No: 09757-07
15 May 2008
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 15 May 2008. 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
13 December 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your undated
reply.
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 particularly noted that your
request for voluntary retirement dated 16 February 2004 (exhibit
8 to your application), paragraph 2, says “If this request is
approved, I understand that a board of inquiry (BOI) will not be
convened to make a recommendation to the Secretary of the Navy
on retirement grade.” The Board observed you reiterated this
understanding in paragraph 2 of the modification of your request
for voluntary retirement dated 3 May 2004 (exhibit 12 to your
application), where you also expressly requested retirement in
the grade. of Chief Warrant Officer 2. Finally, the Board was
unable to find your request for retirement was contingent on
your not being considered by a board of inquiry (BOI) at all.
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,
TR dk BD Fa
ROBERT D. SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10534-06
We recommend that Applicant’s request for relief be denied. The charges were Article 86, Unauthorized Absence, Article 92, Dereliction in the Performance of Duties, and Article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman, ofSubj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFthe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Finally, Applicant claims that the Board’s findings were not supported by the evidence.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07500-09
_A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 2010. The Board also noted that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge, because normally when an individual is separated for misconduct, he is given an other than honorable characterization of service. 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 | CY2008 | 03368-08
Subsequently, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) directed involuntary retirement in the grade maj. g. In an opinion dated 20 May 2009 (enclosure (4), OJAG points out that since Petitioner submitted a voluntary request for retirement prior to the 29 December 2000 NUP and given the fact that the BOI and his chain of command all concurred that he should retire in the grade of ltcol, there is a basis for retirement at that grade. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10370-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2009. In August 2006, the Navy Personnel Command directed that you show cause before a board of inquiry (BOI) as to why you should be retained in the Naval service. Your resignation letter specifically noted that you understood that, if your resignation was accepted you “shall subsequently receive a certificate of general discharge” and that you “could be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR827 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 2015. The Board, in its review of your record and application with its supporting documentation, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, guch as your allegations that your discharge was improperly effectuated, a BOL recommendation was not given due consideration, and an injustice occurred when you were refused orders that would allow you to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09343-08
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, and notwithstanding the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The BOI recommended that you be separated with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions. As indicated above, you were notified by the Show Cause Authority -on 18 February 2005 that the BOI was not limited...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07374-10
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,...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900005
Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19841026 - 19850826 Active: 19850827 - 1988121219881213 - 1992110619960112 - 19970130 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Commission: 19970131Age at Commission: Period of Commission: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20050731 Highest Grade: CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER (W3) Length of Service: Years Months01 Days Education Level: AFQT: 43 MOS: 2100 Fitness Reports:...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05978-03
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 19 August 2003, a copy of which is attached. The BOI also substantiated misconduct or moral or professional dereliction as evidenced by the commission of military or civilian offenses, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by six months or more, or would require proof of specific intent for conviction. The BOI recommended Petitioner's retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10703-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2010. 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...