DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
REC
Docket No: 00499-10
22 September 2010
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 22 September 2010. 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 and began a period of active duty on
1 March 1973, at age 18. You served honorably until 15 May 2008,
when you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for making a false
official statement and providing false documents regarding your
dependent status and their location. You were awarded reduction
in pay grade to E-5. On 22 May 2008, the Bureau of Naval
Personnel still authorized you to be transferred to the Fleet
Reserve in pay grade E-5. On 31 May 2008, you were authorized to
retire honorably from active duty.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your overall record
of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant a reinstatement in your pay grade,
given your record of NUP for misconduct. The Board believed that
you were fortunate to be allowed to retire, because Sailors who
have committed misconduct such as yours are normally
administratively separated under other than honorable condition
and denied retirement benefits. 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,
W. DEAN R
Executive tor
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 | CY2010 | 01408-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 November 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02756-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. On 21 June 2007, you officially received your retirement orders at the retirement grade of 0-5 (commander) . Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your retirement grade due to the seriousness of your misconduct and found no legal error or injustice in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09530-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 23 July 2008 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05217-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2010. 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. 1 December 1987, you received NUP for making a false official statement, destruction of property and urinating in an elevator.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07500-09
_A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 2010. The Board also noted that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge, because normally when an individual is separated for misconduct, he is given an other than honorable characterization of service. 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 | 10537-09
On & October 2006, administrative separation action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an other than honorable discharge. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the reenlistment code or characterization of your discharge, given your record of one NUP and conviction by one SCM. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09184-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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. It also considered your assertion that your misconduct, discharge, and reenlistment code were the result of your abuse of alcohol.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02317-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 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. You served without disciplinary infraction until 5 March 1979, when you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06371-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 May 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...