Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00215-08
Original file (00215-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX JRE
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100

 

G

Docket No. 00215-08
2 April 2009

 

 

 

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 26 March 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.

The Board found that on 9 August 2000, you were convicted by
court-martial of carnal knowledge on divers occasions upon your
daughter, a child under the age of 16; committing sodomy with
your daughter on divers occasions; committing an indecent act
upon your daughter by having sexual intercourse with her;
committing indecent acts on the body of your daughter on an
indeterminate number of occasions while she was under 16 years
of age; and wrongfully using methamphetamines. You were
sentenced to be dismissed form the Navy, confinement at hard
labor for nine years, and forfeiture of $2000.00 pay per month
for nine years. Pursuant to the terms of a pre-trial agreement,
all confinement in excess of two years was suspended for a
period of two years. The findings and sentence were affirmed by
the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and on 10
August 2004, the Secretary of the Navy approved the sentence to
dismissal and ordered its execution. You were dismissed on 17
November 2004.

The Board determined that the positive aspects of your naval
service and completion of a sex offender treatment program are
greatly outweighed by the serious nature of your offenses... It
concluded that it would not be in the interest of justice to
correct your record to show that you were retired from the Navy
rather than dismissed from the naval service. 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 | CY1999 | 02500-98

    Original file (02500-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2500-98 14 April 1999 Dears This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United \ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. also married with two daughters, ages 18...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02837

    Original file (BC-2002-02837.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01030

    Original file (MD04-01030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 980723: GCMCA, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Specifically, the applicant contends that his discharge was unjust “s ince my substantive and procedural due process rights were denied to me and my...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801271

    Original file (9801271.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . The applicant states no reasonable basis for the untimeliness of his request. A bad conduct discharge is an appropriate punishment for the offenses the applicant has committed.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005952

    Original file (20090005952.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s record contains a copy of Headquarters, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center, Fort Sill, OK, General Court-Martial (GCM) Order Number 163, dated 22 June 2006, which documents the following charges, pleas, and findings: a. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a GCM and he received a dishonorable discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3456 13

    Original file (NR3456 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2013. In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, prior honorable service, and personal problems. 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 | CY2006 | 02365-07

    Original file (02365-07.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 8 February 1985, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 27 after a prior period of honorable service. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02365-07

    Original file (02365-07.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 8 February 1985, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 27 after a prior period of honorable service. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02100-09

    Original file (02100-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materiai 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501045

    Original file (ND0501045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01045 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050606. The Commanding Officers. Appeal denied 031103.031008: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of commission of a serious offense-misconduct.031008: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge...