DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION GF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TOR
Docket No: 4913-13
30 April 2014
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, reconsidered your
application on 23 April 2014. 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.
Your record reflects that on 28 October 1978 you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for selling or disposing of military
.property and failure to pay just debts. The punishment imposed
was reduction to paygrade E-5,.
It does not appear that you appealed the NUP or the punishment
imposed; nor does it appear that you requested to have it set
aside. As such, the Board concluded that your commanding
officer’s decision to impose NJP was appropriate and that it was
administratively and procedurally correct, and appropriately
written and filed.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your periods of prior satisfactory service and desire to be
reinstated to paygrade E-6. It also considered your assertion
that you were told that you would be reinstated to paygrade E-6
six months after your separation. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
relief in your case. In this regard, the Board concluded that
there was no evidence in the record to support reinstating you to
paygrade E-6, and in the absence of such evidence, and because
you accepted NUP, the Board concluded that your commanding
officer’s decision to impose it, and the punishment imposed, were
appropriate. 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”ifs 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,
OED «a
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1352 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 2014. As a result of your last NJP, a line of duty investigation (LOD) into injuries sustained by you was conducted. 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 | CY2009 | 12866-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 2010. 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. Finally, no NUP is removed from a record merely because of the passage of time.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7262 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2015. 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. 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 | CY2011 | 01402-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 November 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, .
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 | CY2014 | NR4292 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2014. The Board found that your commanding officer's decision to impose the foregoing NJP, and the punishment imposed, was appropriate, and that it was administratively and procedurally correct. 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...
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 | CY2015 | NR2814 15_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2015. 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. The punishment imposed at your 14 March 1979 NJP was reduction to paygrade E-4, which was suspended for six months.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09424-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 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. In this regard, you did not appeal your NUPs or submit rebuttal statements to your substandard performance evaluations.
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...