EFPAF F fh EF L :
ww SL AA. PYG IN wt mio mds
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
5 5TON 20370-5100
WASHING DC ) SIN
Docket No: 00313-13
23 October 2013
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the previsions 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 22 October 2013. 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on
18 January 2006. The Board found that on 28 September 2006 and
15 February 2007, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for
unauthorized absence, disobedience, making a false official
statement, and assault. Subsequently, administrative discharge
action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. In the absence of a complete discharge package in
your record, the Board presumed regularity of governmental
affairs. As such, the Board presumed that you were properly
notified of the proposed separation processing and afforded all
of your procedural rights. Your case was forwarded and you were
so discharged with a general characterization of service on
26 March 2007.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of
service, character letters, and desire to have your NJP’s removed
from your record. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant removing the two NJP’s you
received while on active duty. Your commanding officer’s
decisions to impose NJP on both occasions were appropriate, and
were administratively and procedurally correct as written and
filed. The Board further concluded that the removal of your
NJP’s is not warranted, and that such action would have been
unfair to your peers, against whom you were competing for
promotions and assignments. 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,
Wy Dems?
W. DEAN PFEIKF
Executive Di ae
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07698-09
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. Nevertheless, it appears that on 23 July 2007, you were granted access to your computer account and again violated the SAAR by accessing an unauthorized website and downloading pornographic Materials. Shortly thereafter, on 26 September 2007, your appeal was denied and the NJP upheld...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07374-10
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 | CY2013 | NR3737 13
You requested removal of a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) held on 28 May 2008, retirement in the rank of commander (pay grade 0o- '5), and removal of two fitness reports for 5 October 2006 to 18 April 2007, and for 17 August 2007 to 8 January 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 July 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2733 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded this factor was not sufficient to remove the NUP from your official records given the facts that you were found...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 10246 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2013. 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. Your record contains correspondence from the Bureau of Naval Personnel dated 13 July 1994 which states, in part, that the DD Form 553 (mark of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07575-05
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.You enlisted in the Navy on 28 August 2003 at. Following the NJP you were counseled and warned...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05686 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 March 2013. 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 | CY2007 | 06714-07
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 Navy on 5 March 2002 at age 23. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00272-07
On 24 July 2006 your commanding officer recommended to the Navy Personnel Command (NAVPERSCOM) that you not be reenlisted. However, given the available evidence, the Board concluded that the commanding officer acted reasonably in concluding that you committed the offense and that nonjudicial punishment was appropriate. 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 | CY2007 | 03074-07
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 Navy on 18 May 2004 at age 23. On 21 June 2006, your commanding officer directed...