DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TAL
Docket No: 1457-12
21 March 2012
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 14 March 2012. 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 9 March 1966 at age 17. On 30 October 1969, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a
lawful order. The punishment awarded was reduction in paygrade
to corporal. On 19 February 1970 you were honorably discharged.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your overall record
and Vietnam service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant removing the NJP and
reinstating you to sergeant. The Board concluded that
sufficient evidence existed to support the commanding officer’s
decision to impose NUP. Finally, no NUP 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,
\ Dan GPle
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Direttor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00959 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 February 2012. 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. 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 | CY2012 | 06939 12
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 thus concluded that there was no error or injustice in your NUP. 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 | CY2013 | NR5694 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 2014. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 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 | CY2014 | NR6087 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2014. 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 | CY2014 | NR5338 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2015. Your commanding officer’s decision to impose NUP was appropriate, and is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed. 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 | 13164 11
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05099-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2012. You did not submit an appeal of the NJP, but simply submitted a request for leniency of your punishment regarding your forfeiture of pay. 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 | CY2008 | 05539-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2009. 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 | 02429-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...