DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORB& ¢
2 NAVY ANNEX Docket No: 3385-08)
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
8 June 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 3 June 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 you reenlisted in the Navy on 26 June 1987
after more than nine years of prior active service. On 5
September 2000 you received nonjudicial punishment for an attempt
to fraternize and failure to obey a lawful order. The punishment
consisted of forfeiture of $500.00 per month for two months. On
31 March 2002 you were transferred to the Fleet Reserve.
The Board concluded that your commanding officer acted reasonably
in your case, and that he was in the best position to resolve the
factual issues and to impose appropriate nonjudicial punishment.
The Board could not find any credible evidence in your
application or record which establishes that you did not commit
the charged offenses. In addition, there is no indication in your
record that you submitted an appeal of the nonjudicial punishment
ox a related Article 138 complaint.--The-Board--did-not accept
your unsubstantiated contentions to the effect that you were
improperly denied consideration for appointment to chief warrant
officer, that you were promoted to senior chief petty officer,
and/or that your name was improperly removed from the E-8
promotion list on an unspecified date.
tn view of the foregoing, 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 | CY2010 | 09380-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06118-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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. On 7 June 1966 the command recommended you for an undesirable discharge due to the civil conviction but also recommended that the discharge be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05539-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 | CY2008 | 10237-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . 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. You were found to have wrongfully used cocaine during August 2002, and were awarded a letter of reprimand as punishment for that offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02401-06
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.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 DD Form 214 indicates that you enlisted in the Navy on 16 June 1987 and served continuously on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02224-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 2008. 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 Board found that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your conviction by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11158-09
The Board did not consider your request for correction of your reentry code, as that request was previously denied, and you have not submitted any new , evidence concerning that request. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 2010. In this regard, your administrative discharge board was the final local authority in discharging you and not your commanding officer.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03476-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 18 May 2009 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached. 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 | CY2009 | 08969-09
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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
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.