DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
REC
Docket No: 06939-12
15 October 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 3 October 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 entered active duty in the Marine Corps on 21 June 2004, at
age 19. On 20 August 2010, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for failure to obey an order issued from your commanding
officer by drinking alcoholic beverages, and operating a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with a blood
alcohol content of .087. You informed your chain of command
that you had no intention of appealing the NUP. On 7 October
2010, the State of Washington dismissed your civil charge. On
21 June 2012, you were honorably discharged by reason of non-
retention on active duty.
In its review of your application, the Board considered all
mitigating factors, such as your overall record of service.
However, the Board found these factors were insufficient to
See
warrant removing your NUP. The Board concluded that your
commanding officer's decision to impose this NUP was appropriate
and that it was administratively and procedurally correct as
written and filed. The Board further concluded that removal of
the NJP or modification of the charge was not warranted. The
Board thus concluded that there was no error or injustice in
your NUP. 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,
TBD Re
Fay DEAN PFEIFFER
Fxecutive Director
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 | CY2010 | 00847-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TAL Docket No: 847-10 29 October 2010 Ey 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 27 October 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board...
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01457-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 March 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 | CY2014 | NR5468 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 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. 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 | 08179-11
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 | CY2010 | 09259-10
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former officer of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in part, that his record be corrected by removing the nonjudicial punishment (NIP) imposed on 3 September 2009. f. In an AO from MIO dated 21 October 2010, it was recommended that since Petitioner had committed the offenses of failure to obey a lawful order and drunken driving, his record, specifically, the administrative remarks (counselling)...
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 | CY2012 | 00475 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 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...
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.