DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 02756-08
16 January 2009
This:'is in reference to your application for correction to your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 11 December 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.
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 13 January 2006, through legal counsel, you were found guilty
at nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for multiple violations of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), to include signing a
false official statement, larceny, forgery, fraud against the US
government, and conduct unbecoming an officer. As a result, you
received a punitive letter of reprimand. On 30 January 2006, you
appealed your NUP and on 28 February 2006, your appeal was denied
by the proper authority. On 21 March 2006, you submitted your
request to transfer to the retired reserve list after 30 years of
service to retire in the grade of 0-6 (captain).
Shortly thereafter, on 27 November 2006, the Naval Personnel
Command (NPC) sent you a notification letter of retirement grade
determination (RGD) proceedings due to your NUP. NPC recommended
you retire at the grade of O-5 (commander) due to the seriousness
of your misconduct. The RGD recommendation was approved by the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN). You appealed the decision
of the RGD to the ASN. However, on 18 June 2007, ASN denied your
appeal. On 21 June 2007, you officially received your retirement
orders at the retirement grade of 0-5 (commander) .
The Board, in its review of you entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your length of service and fitness reports. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a
change to your retirement grade due to the seriousness of your
misconduct and found no legal error or injustice in your case.
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,
WQeas
Executive oO
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09936-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 2007. On 18 July 2006 the NPC advised your command that ASN had approved the recommendation. 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 | CY2007 | 04696-07
04696-0721 September 2007 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 20 September 2007. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 July 2007, a copy of which is attached. His date of rank...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3737 13
You requested removal of a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) held on 28 May 2008, retirement in the rank of commander (pay grade 0o- '5), and removal of two fitness reports for 5 October 2006 to 18 April 2007, and for 17 August 2007 to 8 January 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 July 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07595-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2011. 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. Presumably, your statements were taken into consideration at all levels of review, but on 9 October 2009, NPC recommended that you be honorably...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10282-06
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 5 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 26 October 2003 with about 16 years of active service from prior...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00282-06
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 5 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 26 October 2003 with about 16 years of active service from prior...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05866-06
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 reference requests an advisor opinion onpetition t correct his record to showThat he was retired as a Colonel (0-6 and issue him a SE~ code that calculates his retired pay in a onstandard mannerclaims that his retirement as a Lieutenant Colonel and the SEP code 4ie was assigned upon...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03208 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: MR. ALAN K. HAHN HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Board set aside two Article 15 punishments imposed upon him on 11 Dec 95 and 12 Sep 96; set aside the Secretary of the Air Force’s (SAF) decision to retire him in the grade of major; and, that he be retired in the grade of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06929-09
Z A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 July 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. Finally, the Board noted that, serving as an officer in the Marine Corps, you were not assigned a reenlistment code, and therefore, your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07698-09
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, it appears that on 23 July 2007, you were granted access to your computer account and again violated the SAAR by accessing an unauthorized website and downloading pornographic Materials. Shortly thereafter, on 26 September 2007, your appeal was denied and the NJP upheld...