DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 10565-08
24 March 2009
This 1s 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 25 February 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you entered into a pre-trial agreement on 15
December 2006 in which you agreed to accept nonjudicial
punishment provided that the convening authority withdrew and
dismissed similar charges that had been preferred against you and
referred to a special court-martial. On 4 January 2007 you
received nonjudicial punishment for wrongfully using blue lights
on the dashboard of your car in violation a Florida statute that
had been assimilated into federal law; wrongfully impersonating
and asserting the authority of a law enforcement official by
using flashing or rotating blue lights on your non-governmentally
owned vehicle to stop another motorist on a naval station; and
wrongfully impersonating and asserting the authority of a law
enforcement official by using flashing or rotating blue lights on
your non-governmentally owned vehicle to stop another motorist on
an interstate highway. The punishment consisted of a punitive
letter of reprimand and reduction in rate, which was suspended.
The Board did nok accept your unsubstantiated contention to the
effect that you agreed to accept nonjudicial punishment because
you had been led to believe that the punishment! would be set-
aside. The Board concluded that your commanding officer acted
reasonably in your case, and that he was in the best positicn to
resolve the factual issues and to impose appropriate punishment.
There is no credible evidence that you did not commit the charged
offenses. In addition, the Board noted that you received a
substantial benefit by accepting the nonjudicial punishment, as
you avoided the possibility of a conviction by court-martial,
confinement at hard labor and punitive separation from the Navy.
In view of the foregoing, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
The Board did not consider your request for removal of a “Form 83
CSF” from your record because no such document is filed in your
official military personnel file.
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,
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2001-0503
Because a punitive discharge is authorized for the offense of reckless driving under the UCMJ, the respondent's misconduct in the present case constitutes a serious offense for purposes of discharge action under paragraph 5.52 of AFI 36-3208. The respondent was afforded the opportunity to thoroughly respond to the discharge package, consult with military counsel, and address the issue of service characterization in his written response. Direct the discharge package be reinitiated with a...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500623
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06521-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 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 | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00933
ND04-00933 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040518. I tried my best to be the man the Navy wanted but because of my medical problems which began with a fractured wrist the very first week on a ship. Appeal denied 990402.No Discharge Package PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19990402 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05773-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 May 2010. After Waiving your procedural rights, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 10 January 1992, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8954 13
| A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 2014. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3113-13
in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted -in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable ‘sStatutés, 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 | BCNR | CY2011 | 04226 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 February 2012. 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 19 August 1985 at age 18.
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900749
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined clemency was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0126
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0126 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: a. Enlisted as AB 96/05/23 for 4°Yrs. If you need more space, submit additional issues on an attachment.