DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 9424-08
21 May 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 21 May 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 10 November 1987 after 12 years of
prior honorable service. You continued to serve without
disciplinary incident until 19 July 1988, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for misbehavior as a sentinel. The
punishment imposed was restriction for 60 days and reduction to
paygrade E-5. The record reflects that you did not appeal this
NJP. A month later, on 18 August 1988, you received your second
NIP for dereliction of duty and were awarded a reduction to
paygrade E-4, which was suspended for six months. Again, the
record does not reflect that you appealed this NUP.
During the period from 28 February to 19 March 1989 your
commanding officer generated correspondence regarding a
performance review which detailed your substandard performance
and leadership, denial of a security clearance, potential removal
from the Radioman (RM) rating; imposition of two NUPs, review by
a Quality Control Board, and nonrecommendations for advancement
and retention. Shortly thereafter, on 3 July 1989, you received
a letter of substandard service which noted your deficiencies in
performance and conduct, the requirement for improvement, and a
warning that failure to improve could result in an administrative
separation.
On 14 June 1990 you received a third NUP for two specifications
of dereliction of duty and making a false official statement.
The punishment imposed was reduction to paygrade E-4. The record
also reflects that you did not appeal this NUP.
Your record contains three enlisted performance evaluations for
the period from 29 January 1988 to 31 March 1990 in which you
were not recommended for advancement or retention. Although the
record reflects an indication that you “intended” to submit a
statement of rebuttal to one of the performance evaluations, such
a statement is not in the record. A separation performance
evaluation for the period from 1 April to 6 October 1990 is not
contained in your record. However, a page 9 entry reflects that
you received a substandard overall trait of 2.8 for that period.
Subsequently, on 28 February 1991, while serving in paygrade E-4,
you were honorably transferred to the Naval Reserve. At that
time you were not recommended for retention or reenlistment and
were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
which includes the narrative with exhibits, carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as the prior honorable
service in the Navy and Air Force, explanations surrounding your
disciplinary infractions and the severity of the punishments, and
request for advancement to paygrade E-6. It also considered your
assertions that your paygrade reductions were caused by extreme
prejudice, a paygrade reduction was severe as punishment for a
first time NJP, and undergoing unusually close scrutiny by your
chain-of-command. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that you
have submitted no evidence to show that the NUJPs were improperly
or inappropriately imposed or that the punishment, specifically,
a paygrade reduction, was too severe for the offenses committed.
Further, the Board noted that, at the time of your masts, you did
not take advantage of the appeal process at which time you could
have expressed your concerns regarding severe or harsh
punishment. In this regard, you did not appeal your NUPs or
submit rebuttal statements to your substandard performance
evaluations. Be advised that no NJP is removed from a record
merely because of an individual’s assertions of inappropriateness
or the passage of time. Finally, there is no evidence in the
record, and you submitted none, to support your assertions of an
injustice, grievous error, or prejudice. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06323-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The reporting senior stated, in part, as follows: (Member) requires direct supervision to get satisfactory results.... he takes no ownership of any actions and constantly makes excuses for his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01540-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 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 | 05284-08
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 | CY2010 | 06169-10
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 25 September 1990 an ADB recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | 02092-08
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, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code because of your disciplinary record which resulted in two NUPs, failure of professional growth criteria, and nonrecommendation for retention or reenlistment. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06382-07
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. December 1984 to 3 May 1985, which was submitted on the occasion of your separation, states that you were not recommended for advancement or retention due to an increase in your weight physical qualifications. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08138-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11357-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2011. 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 | CY2013 | NR4913 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your application on 23 April 2014. In this regard, the Board concluded that there was no evidence in the record to support reinstating you to paygrade E-6, and in the absence of such evidence, and because you accepted NUP, the Board concluded that your commanding officer’s decision to impose it, and the punishment imposed, were appropriate. Consequently, “when applying for a...
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...