DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100
_CRS
Docket No: 3653-08
21 August 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to che 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 19 August 2009. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
reguiations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
your application, together with ail 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 probabie material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 24 July 1989.
On 8 December 2005 you received nonjudicial punishment (NIP) for
fraternization. The punishment imposed consisted of forfeiture
of $1666.00 per month for two months and restriction and extra
duty for 45 days. A fitness report for the period of 4 October
to 8 December 2005 contains a reference to the NUP, and is
adverse. On 5 April 2006 an administrative discharge board (ADB)
convened to determine whether or not you had committed
misconduct, and if so, to recommend retention or discharge. The
ADB found that you had not committed misconduct, and recommended
that you be retained in the Navy. Your commanding officer did
not contest the findings or recommendation of the ADS; however,
he denied your request that he set-aside the related NUP. You
received an adverse fitness report for the period 9 December 2005
to 15 September 2006. The report indicates that you had failed
the spring 2006 physical fitness assessment. ,
The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that no
misconduct or violations ever occurred. The Board presumed that
your commanding officer acted reasonably in your case when he
determined that you had committed that offense, and concluded
rhat he was in the best position to resolve the factual issues
and to impose appropriate punishment. The finding by the ADB
that you did not commit misconduct, which is not binding on the
Board, was considered insufficient to warrant the expunction of
the NUP and related documents from your record.
Concerning your request for removal of the two above fitness
reports, the Board found that you did not make any contentions of
error or injustice in connection with either report and no
material errors are apparent in either. As you have not
demonstrated that the reports are erroneous or unjust, there is
no basis for removing them from your record. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members
o£ 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,
\p
W. DEAN PFRIFF
Executive Dire
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 | 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06705-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS Docket No: 6705-09 5 October 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Sub3 : ii eeeeiias SREVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD” Ref: {a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner applied to this Board requesting that his naval record be =: corrected by setting-aside the nonjudicial punishment | {NJP) he received on 5 March 2008...
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 | CY2009 | 04984-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03051-08
__> DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SMS Docket No: 3051-08 2 October 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07197-08
~_ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 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 20 August 2008, an ADB unanimously found that you had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and recommended discharge...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06711-08
[Petitioner] was involuntarily discharged from the Marine Corps with an honorable characterization of service and has been on continuous active duty since October 1994 until her separation. Accordingly, we recommend that [Petitioner's] request for separation [sic] be denied. Furthermore, the law and regulations allow commanders to recommend separation of commissioned officers without the recommendation of a BOI when they have less than five years of active duty service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00471-09
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. Your commanding officer did not contest the findings or recommendation of the ADB; however, he denied your request that he set-aside the related NUP. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06218-06
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 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 injusticeThe Board found that YOU reenlisted in the Navy on 15 November 2002 after more than three years of...