DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX TRG
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No: 11135-07
26 February 2008
Dear
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 18 February 2009. 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.
Your record shows that you were advanced to petty officer first
class (TM1; paygrade E-6) on 21 August 1998 and then served in an
excellent manner for over four years. In your performance
evaluation for the period ending 30 August 2002 you were
recommended for early promotion and retention in the Navy
Reserve.
On 31 August 2002 you reported for extended active duty.
Sometime after that you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
violations of Article 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. The punishment imposed was a reduction in rate to petty
officer second class (TM2; paygrade E-5). The NUP documentation
is not filed in your record and the details of the offenses are
unknown. The subsequent performance evaluation for the period
ending 26 February 2003 indicates that you were reduced in rate
during the evaluation period. You were released from active duty
on 24 April 2003.
You continued to be a member of the Navy Reserve and earned
qualifying years in support of the Sea Cadet program. You
ultimately qualified for reserve retirement in 2007 and were
retired as a TM2.
As indicated, the NUP documentation is not filed in the record
and details of the offenses are unknown. The Board considered
your contention that other individuals involved in the incident
lied about your involvement. It is clear that you would have
presented your version of events to the commanding officer prior
to the imposition of punishment. Since no other information is
available, the Board believed that the commanding officer
properly considered the evidence and believed that you committed
the offenses. Further, there is no evidence that he abused his
discretion when he elected to impose a reduction in rate at the
NUP. Therefore, the Board concluded that you were properly
reduced in’ rate and a correction to your record is not 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09424-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 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. In this regard, you did not appeal your NUPs or submit rebuttal statements to your substandard performance evaluations.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01136-06
He then served in the Navy Reserve, earning six qualifying years for reserve retirement between 1994 and 2000. On 14 December 2003, he reenlisted in the Navy Reserve for six years. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record to document the Board's action and so all future reviewers will understand the reasons for the change in the retirement grade.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09115-05
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
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 | BCNR | CY2008 | 02092-08
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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code because of your disciplinary record which resulted in two NUPs, failure of professional growth criteria, and nonrecommendation for retention or reenlistment. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03731-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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 | 08499-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2007. 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 | CY2007 | 08543-07
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 11 January 1980. All of the court-martial sentence was suspended for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06890-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The following day, your counsel responded that any Your counsel On 23 February 1998, the secretarial designee directed that your records be corrected to show that you were involuntarily discharged on 13 December 1995 by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08177-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You then reenlisted for six years on 9 March The record reflects that you were advanced to TM2 (E-5) on 16 January 1980 and served without incident until 6 May 1982 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to...