DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 06582-08
8 May 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 5 May 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You. reenlisted in the Navy on 18 October 2006 after 19 years of
honorable service. During the period from October 2005 to March
2007, you wrongfully received Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA).
On 28 February 2008, you signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), stating that you agreed to accept a summary court-martial
(SCM) and that you would plead guilty to one specification of
wrongful appropriation of OHA in the amount of about $16,388.00.
The record shows that before entering into the MOU, you were
advised by counsel throughout the agreement negotiations and were
counseled regarding the meaning and effect of the terms of it.
Subsequently, on 12 March 2008, you were convicted by SCM of
wrongful appropriation. You were sentenced to a reduction in
paygrade and a forfeiture of pay. You remained on active duty
until 30 September 2008 when you were honorably transferred to
the Navy Fleet Reserve.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your prior honorable service, Good Conduct Medals and other
numerous awards. Nevertheless, the Board found that these
factors were not sufficient to warrant mitigation of your
punishment. The Board is expressly forbidden from reviewing the
findings rendered by a court-martial and must restrict its review
to the appropriateness of the sentence. 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,
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02077-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 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 13 August 1992 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of wrongful use of marijuana.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02049-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 2009. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03814-07
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 3 January 1982 the discharge authority directed discharge under honorable conditions by reason of drug abuse. 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 | CY2008 | 07498-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2009. It also considered your assertion that you were told that you were being discharged under an “early-out” program and that your discharge would be automatically upgraded six months after your separation from the Marine Corps. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9471 13
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. However, the Board found those factors insufficient to warrant any change in your reentry code, due to your SCM conviction. 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 | 01358-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 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 13 August 1990, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07579-08
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. 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 | 08888-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2009. Your conduct average was 2.0, and an average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your release from active duty for a fully honorable characterization of service. 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 | 07617-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01125-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 December 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...