Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12866-09
Original file (12866-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TUR
Docket No: 12866-09
15 September 2010

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Tithe 16, 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 14 September 2010. 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 6 November 1989 at age 19 and served
without disciplinary incident until 1 September 1993, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for failure co return a
government vehicle, wrongful appropriation by depriving the use
of a government vehicle, uttering a check without sufficient

funds, and making a false official statement. The punishment
imposed was reduction to paygrade E-3, extra duty for 60 days,
and a suspended forfeiture of pay. The record does not reflect

that you filed an appeal to the NUP.

Subsequently, on 5 December 1993, you were honorably released
from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve. On 13
February 1997, 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
your period of honorable service prior to receiving NJP, desire
to have the NJP removed from your record, and reinstatement in
paygrade E-4. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that you have
submitted no evidence to show that the NUP was improperly or
inappropriately imposed. Further, it appears that you did not
appeal the NUP. Finally, no NUP is removed from a record merely
because of the passage of time. Accordingly, your application

, has been denied.

Ft is regretted #hat 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,

  
  

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04246-11

    Original file (04246-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 April 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. The foregoing civil case, specifically, the administrative action to suspend or revoke your driving privileges for driving under the influence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00331-11

    Original file (00331-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 February 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 | CY2009 | 07698-09

    Original file (07698-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2014 | NR7262 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7262 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2015. 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. 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 | CY2008 | 09424-08

    Original file (09424-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2008 | 05539-08

    Original file (05539-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2011 | 00400-11

    Original file (00400-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 February 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 | CY2014 | NR4292 14

    Original file (NR4292 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2014. The Board found that your commanding officer's decision to impose the foregoing NJP, and the punishment imposed, was appropriate, and that it was administratively and procedurally correct. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02203-09

    Original file (02203-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with aii 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03173-09

    Original file (03173-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 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...