Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03127-11
Original file (03127-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TUR
Docket No: 3127-11
30 March 2011

 

pee eB

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 29 March 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 30 August 2007 you were the subject of a
traffic violation, specifically, operating a vehicle while
subject to an impairing substance. You were issued a citation
and were advised of a date to appear in civil court if you wished
to contest the citation. Nonetheless, on 21 December 2007, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NTP) for failure to obey a
lawful order and reckless driving. The punishment imposed was a
$3,132 forfeiture of pay. The record reflects that you did not
appeal the NUP, and as such, presumably accepted the findings of
guilt. You also received (acknowledged and signed) an adverse
performance evaluation which noted the NUP and its punishment,
and that you had taken corrective measures to recommit to Navy
Core Values. Subsequently, on 22 January 2008, the foregoing
civil charges were dismissed because the officer who issued the

citation did not appear ii court.

The Board concluded that your commanding officer's decision to
impose the foregoing NUP, and the punishment imposed, was
appropriate, and that it was administratively and procedurally
correct. It also concluded that the adverse performance
evaluation was administratively appropriate as written and filed.
Further, the Board concluded that the civil charges were
dismissed based solely on a technicality and does not negate the
fact that you were guilty of the offense. As such, the Board
concluded that there was no evidence in the record to support
removal of the NUP. Finally, the Board noted that you did not
appeal the NJP and concluded that its removal from your record is
unwarranted, and that such action would be unfair to your peers,
against whom you will compete for promotions and assignments.
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,

LW Woh

W. DEAN PF R
Executive D¥recto

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04246-11

    Original file (04246-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2011 | 00400-11

    Original file (00400-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 February 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 | CY2010 | 09411-10

    Original file (09411-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 February 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 | CY2011 | 01519-11

    Original file (01519-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07374-10

    Original file (07374-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 May 2011. The rec ra reflects that on 17 May 2007 you were subsequently found guilty of only one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman for the period cited “between on or about November 2004 and on or about May 2005." The Board concluded that your commanding officer's decision to impose the foregoing NUP, and the punishment imposed,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1145 14

    Original file (NR1145 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all derogatory material regarding the nonjudicial punishment (NUP) imposed on 31 July 2007 and the fitness report (FITREP) for the period from 16 December 2006 to 31 July 2007, which references the NUP, from both his official military personnel file (OMPF) and the Marine Corps Total Force System...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13721-10

    Original file (13721-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2011 | 08179-11

    Original file (08179-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2013 | NR9119 13

    Original file (NR9119 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | 13164 11

    Original file (13164 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2012. On 18 April 2011, a report of the NUP was forwarded to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC). The results of the BOI were forwarded and you were informed that you would be retained in the Navy, but that the NUP would become part of your official record.