DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 5339-08
8 April 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of 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 7 April 2009. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.
You enlisted in the Navy on 12 March 1964 at age 17 and served
without disciplinary incident until 14 September 1965, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for drinking alcoholic
beverages as a minor and in an unauthorized area. The punishment
imposed was a $25 forfeiture of pay. The record reflects that
you did not appeal this NUP.
On 19 June 1967 you received your second NUP for willful
destruction of a shipboard announcing system speaker valued at
about $34. The punishment imposed was correctional custody at
hard labor for 10 days and a reduction in paygrade. The record
also reflects that you did not appeal this NUP.
Subsequently, on 27 October 1967, you were honorably released
from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve. On 11
March 1970, at the expiration of your enlistment, you were
honorably discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the
passage of time, your youth and request to have the NJP imposed
on 19 June 1967 removed from your record. It also considered
your assertion of being the subject of a “high handed act of
injustice or a grievous error in judgment” as evidenced by the
NIP imposed on 19 June 1967. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
that you have submitted no evidence to show that either NJP was
improperly or inappropriately imposed. The Board also noted that
you did not appeal your NUPs. Further, no NJP is removed froma
record merely because of the passage of time. Finally, there is
no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support
your assertion of an injustice or grievous error. Accordingly,
your application has been denied.
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,
beste:
W. DEAN P
Executive Oo
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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12866-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 2010. 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. Finally, no NUP is removed from a record merely because of the passage of time.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11317-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 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. You contend in your application, in effect, that the nature of your offenses recorded in your service record for which you received NJP on 10...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06431-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Subsequently, you submitted a written request for restoration to duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07599-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 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. On 21 January 1966 you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for an 85 day period of unauthorized absence (UA).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08879-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your period of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06412-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. 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 | 08040-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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. 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 | 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...