DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
: 2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 1408-10
17 November 2010
genes ee
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 10 November 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 29 June 1999 at age 19. On 22 February 2008, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for adultery and making a
false official statement. The punishment awarded was forfeiture
of pay and restriction for 45 days, which was suspended for six
months. You were also reduced in rank to corporal. On 13 March
2008, your appeal of the foregoing NUP was reviewed. It was
determined that the punishment awarded was neither unjust nor
disproportionate to the offenses you committed and your appeal
was denied.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your overall record
of more than nine years of honorable service. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
removing the NUP. The Board concluded that sufficient evidence
existed to support the commanding office's decision to impose
NIP. The Board substantially concurred with the comments
contained in the Commanding Officer's endorsement to your appeal
of the NUP. 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 efficial records.
Gnsequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
Yecord, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
=
Sincerely,
Executive Di
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 | CY2014 | NR3945 14
aA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2015. Additionally, the Board noted that you did not appeal the NUP and concluded that its removal from your record was unwarranted. 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 | 08179-11
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 two occasions, 19 September 1996, and 19 November 2007, you signed and acknowledged the Navy’s policy concerning sexual harassment. commanding officer submitted a request for detachment for cause by reason of sexual harassment, which you were allotted sufficient time to respond.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04184-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 26 February 2008, you submitted an appeal that was denied on 13 March 2008.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12866-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 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. Finally, no NUP is removed from a record merely because of the passage of time.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00847-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TAL Docket No: 847-10 29 October 2010 Ey 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 27 October 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board...
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 | CY2014 | NR7262 14_Redacted
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 | 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 | CY2009 | 03173-09
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...