DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 9411-10
2 February 2011
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 1 February 2011. 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that on 11 October 2008 you were the subject of
a routine traffic stop by civil authorities. As a result, you
were apprehended for suspicion of driving while impaired as
evidenced by your driving left of the center of the road and the
detection of the odor of alcohol on your breath. On 17 October
2008, during an inquiry into the foregoing civil charges and
being suspected of drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle,
you exercised your right to remain silent. Nonetheless, on 13
November 2008, you were charged with physically controlling a
passenger vehicle while the alcohol concentration in your breath
was equal to or exceeded the legal limit. On 3 December 2008,
you were notified of the intent to conduct a hearing regarding
your offense of drunken or reckless driving. At that time you
“did not desire to demand trial by court-martial” and accepted
punishment under Article 15. Shortly thereafter, on 19 December
2008, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for drunken or
reckless driving.
On 15 January 2009, the offenses for which your driver's license
was revoked and you were apprehended by civil authorities,
specifically, driving while impaired and driving left of the
center of the road, were judicially dismissed in civil court.
However, this dismissal, in no way, negated your commanding
officer’s decision to impose the foregoing NUP.
The Board noted that you accepted NJP and did not appeal the
findings of guilt. The Board concluded that the NUP was
appropriate and that it was administratively and procedurally
correct ds written and filed. Finally, the Board concluded that
there was no evidence in the record ‘to support removal of the
NJP. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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,
Lo Doon
W. Deen PFEIN'F
Executive Di Cc
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13721-10
A three-member panel of thes Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with adnfiinistrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board, Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of yoir application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9119 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with - this Board requesting that his record be corrected by removing derogatory material regarding driving while impaired on or about 12 February 2011, which is reflected in the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed on 17 February 2011. f. In the AO from JAM, enclosure (4), it was recommended that Petitioner's request be partially granted by redacting the Article 92 (failure...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04246-11
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 | CY2013 | NR4351 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 April 2014. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing your reentry code given the seriousness of your misconduct that resulted in two NUPs, a ‘civil conviction and that you were no longer qualified for submarine service... The Board believed you were fortunate to receive a general discharge since Sailors who are...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000598
There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans' benefits, and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03127-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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. The Board concluded that your commanding officer's decision to impose the foregoing NUP, and the punishment imposed, was appropriate, and that it...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01519-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. Finally, the Board concluded that there was no evidence in the record to support removal of the NUP.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01003
In support of his request, the applicant provides a statement from counsel and copies of documents extracted from his military records. On 3 Jan 11, his commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for the commission of a serious offense. ____________________________________________________________ _____ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01003 in Executive Session on 6 Dec 11, under the provisions of AFI...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500881
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service/Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From/To Representation: From/To Congress member: Types of Witnesses Who Testified Expert: Character:...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301864
The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment to Afghanistan from November 2010 to February 2011, in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...