DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 6945-08
26 August 2008
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 13 August 2008. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
together with all material submitted in support
regulations
Board.
your application,
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
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 16 July 2004
after prior active service in the Army and Navy. On 1 December
2006 you had surgery and were placed on convalescent leave for 21
days. On 15 December 2006 you received nonjudicial punishment
for an unauthorized absence and willful disobedience of a lawful
order. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $250 and
restriction for 11 days. On 26 December 2006 you were detached
from the USS San Jacinto with orders to report for duty to the
USS Kaufman.
The Board found no merit in your contention that the nonjudicial
punishment was unjust because you believed that you were detached
from the USS San Jacinto prior to having surgery and that you had
allegedly received permission from the commanding officer of the
USS Kaufman to have the surgery. There is no evidence in your
record that you officially departed the San Jacinto prior to your
surgery. 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 punishment.
offenses. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07477-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01147
ND01-01147 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010904, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority or Completion of Required Service. Remedy Sought outlines the applicant’s discharge proceedings: the Administrative Board, Recommendation by the Administrative Board (separation with characterization of General Under Honorable conditions), the Letter...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00747
After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant’s service at the time of issue. Recommended SNM be expeditiously discharged under other than honorable conditions"950928: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. After considering the applicant’s service...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501504
Charge IV: Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification 1: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM, to wit: NONPUNITIVE LETTER OF CAUTION, dated December 02, 2002, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about Dec 03, 2002, fail to obey the same by wrongfully continuing a personal relationship with GM2 R_ D. M_. Specification 2: In that Lieutenant...
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00392
The Board’s vote was 3 to 2 that the character of the discharge shall change to: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT- Commission of a Serious Offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00858-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 May 2006. 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. San Diego, CA for shore duty with a Projected Rotation Date (PRD) of December 2005. lAW Ref(a) to maintain his CONSUBPAY eligibility, he needed to extend/reenlist through February...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00462-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. Although your last performance evaluation is not filed in your record, the Board believed that the diagnosis of dependency and your refusal of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01550-06
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memorandum 7220 Ser N13OE/06U0493, 5 September 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYOFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 2000 NAVY PENTAGON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-2000 7220 Ser...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05709-06
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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memorandum 7220 Ser N130C4/06U0462, 21 August 2006, a copy of each is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13210-09
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...