DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD :hd
Docket No. 13204-09
3 April 2010
This is in reference Lo your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.
You requested, in effect, setting aside your nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) of 12 December 2006 and removing ail
documentation of the NUP, to include the punitive letter of
reprimand dated 14 December 2006; removing the fitness report
for 1 November to 12 December 2006; removing the notification of
filing of adverse matters letter dated 4 April 2007; and
removing the status in the U. S. Navy letter dated 23 May 2007.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 1 April 2010. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Pocumentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 26
January 2010 with enclosure and 12 February 2010, copies of
which are attached. The Board also considered your letter dated
11 March 2010.
Bfter 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. In this connection, the Board substantiaily
concurred with the advisory opinions. The Board was unable to
find the legal officer advised you not to appeal the NUP, nor
could it find you were not given a fair chance to provide
evidence in your own defense. The Board likewise unable to
accept your assertion that the other officers involved did not
receive NUP, or if you are correct about the disposition of
their cases, that their circumstances were substantially
identical to yours. Finally, the supporting statements you
provided did not persuade the Board you were wrongfully
. punished. In view of the above, 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,
Wok
W. DEAN P R
Executive Director
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11456-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. application on 7 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11528-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. The Board particularly noted that on 8 February 2007, you submitted a copy of the report ending 31 October 2006 to the FY 08 Line Commander Selection Board, convened on 13 February 2007. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11858-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2011. The Board was unable to find that your circumstances prevented you from availing yourself of your opportunities to defend yourself or pursue redress regarding the contested performance evaluation reports. 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 | NR3737 13
You requested removal of a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) held on 28 May 2008, retirement in the rank of commander (pay grade 0o- '5), and removal of two fitness reports for 5 October 2006 to 18 April 2007, and for 17 August 2007 to 8 January 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 July 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04984-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07698-09
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 | CY2010 | 00446-10
You finally impliedly requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") counseling entry dated 25 January 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. Further, the (enclosure Board was unable to find your promotion would not have been delayed, had the results of the inspection, which was conducted on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11523-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 2 December 2009 and 30 March 2010 with attachments and the Memorandum for the Record dated 29 June 2010, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00587-09
™ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-~- 311) dated 26 February 2009, a copy of which is attached. 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 | 06632-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...