DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
0 if — me
Docket No: 4130-10
31 October 2011
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 26 October 2011. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
\ regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
a 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 27 June 2002 after more than
fifteen years of prior honorable service. On 12 October 2006,
you were counseled regarding two instances of failure to obey a
lawful order and two instances of disrespect toward a superior
commissioned officer and warned that further offenses could
result in administrative separation. On 9 April 2007, your
received nonjudicial punishment (NTP) for failure to obey a
lawful order. The punishment awarded was reduction in paygrade to
E-4 and restriction and extra duties for a period of 21 days,
with suspension of the restriction and extra duties.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your overall record
of more than fifteen 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. Finally, no NIP is removed from a record merely because of
the passage of time. 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,
a Doo Kae
W. DEAN PFEIL
Executive Dikeéc
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07395-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2011. Documentary material considered by together with all the Board consisted of your application, 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 | 04809-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. On 5 February 1976, you received NIP for UA from your unit for a period of two days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06151-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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. You served without disciplinary incident until 6 July 1978, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6580-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2014. 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. You completed your required active duty on 3 February 1999 in pay grade E-2, were honorably transferred to the Navy Reserve, and assigned an RE-4 (not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05281-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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. After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08507-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. You were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07013-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2009. Your request for discharge was granted and on 26 October 1978, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 | CY2010 | 05832-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 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 | CY2012 | 10422 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2012. On 11 February 2011, you did file an appeal and on 18 February 2011, your appeal was denied. 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 | CY2010 | 05280-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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...