Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04246-11
Original file (04246-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

‘Lae
Docket No: 4245-11
28 April 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 26 April 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 er injustice.

The Board found that on 14 August 2010 you were the subject of a
traffic violation as a result of your driving under the influence
of alcohol. It appears that after you declined to take a
breathalyzer test, you were arrested and issued a citation.
Presumably, you were advised of a date to appear in civil court
if you wished to contest the citation. Nonetheless, on 27
September 2010, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for
failure to obey a lawful order as evidenced by your driving under
the influence of alcohol and drunken or reckless operation of a
vehicle. The punishment imposed was reduction to paygrade E-4
and a $2,198 forfeiture of pay, a portion of which was suspended
for six months. The record clearly reflects that you did not

appeal the NUP, and as such, presumably accepted the findings of
guile . ,
About six months after your arrest by civil authorities, on 11
February 2011, you appeared for a hearing in civil court. The
foregoing civil case, specifically, the administrative action to
suspend or revoke your driving privileges for driving under the
influence of alcohol and refusing to take a breathalyzer test,
was dismissed because the officer who issued the citation did not
appear in 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. Further, the Board concluded that only the
administrative action to suspend your driving privileges was
dismissed, and that this dismissal was based solely ona
technicality and does not negate the fact that you were guilty of
the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. 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,

\e
ONTO R

Executive D

Similar Decisions

  • 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,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007119

    Original file (20140007119.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was subsequently charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test, which resulted in him receiving the GOMOR at issue here. The GOMOR states, in part: You are hereby reprimanded for driving while intoxicated. You were then charged with driving while intoxicated.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02965-08

    Original file (02965-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory Opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 24 April 2008, a copy of which is attached. 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. Applicant now requests that his NUP be removed from his record stating that his driving while impaired charge was dismissed by the civilian courts.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004838

    Original file (20140004838.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, on 4 September 2012, [Applicant] received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, which was filed in his OMPF, based on his arrest at FT. [sic] Bragg on 14 June 2012 for failing to maintain his lane and refusal to submit to a breathalyzer resulting in a charge of driving while intoxicated. On 21 September 2012, in a memorandum for his senior rater, the applicant stated: In response to the Officer Evaluation Report Referral, I respectfully submit the following: On 15 June 2012 I...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 10227 12

    Original file (10227 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 TAL Docket No: 10227-12 2 November 2012 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records TO: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD > RPE NET NC Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting the removal of all adverse material from his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019581

    Original file (20110019581.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 11 March 2010, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or in the alternative, transfer of the GOMOR to the restricted section of his OMPF. A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance section. The GOMOR was correctly filed.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022205

    Original file (20130022205.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 July 2007, the applicant was reprimanded via GOMOR from the Commanding General (CG), Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) Fort Bragg, NC. On 6 December 2007, the CG directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's AMHRR. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides, in pertinent part, that an administrative memorandum of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016428

    Original file (20120016428.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests removal of a Relief for Cause officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 16 June 2009 through 8 September 2009 from his permanent file. c. Based upon the good suppression issue, the applicant's excellent performance during the Field Sobriety Test and the dismissal of one of the police officer's, the county attorney observed that he did not have adequate proof the applicant was operating his vehicle under the influence when he was stopped. Army Regulation states...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00801-99

    Original file (00801-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 1999. Your record reflects that prior to your reenlistment you had four convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) and had completed in-patient (level 111) alcohol rehabilitation treatment in April 1986. The Board notes that the Navy is very reluctant to discharge an individual with more than 19 years of service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11597 14

    Original file (NR11597 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 3 March 2015. 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...