Ges.
GOD | S a
Mas a DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
fet aan Tae Ne! ROARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 1004
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket No. NRO@872-13
29 July 2014
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 July
2014, 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. The Board also carefully considered the
advisory opinion provided by the Staff Juage navocate at the U.S. Naval
Academy dated se a copy of which was provided to your counsel,
with enclosures, and which is now enclosed. The Board also considered
your counsel's response, dated 24 May 2014 to the advisory opinion.
Additionally, you also requested a personal appearance pefore the Board.
The Board members considered your request for 4 personal appearance,
however, they found that the issue in the case was adequately documented
and that a personal appearance with or without counsel would not
materially add to the Board’ s understanding of the issues involved.
Thus, your request for a personal appearance has been denied.
Your application requested, essentially, that your education debt be set
aside or retention in the U.S. Naval Academy. The Board carefully
considered all of the arguments raised in your application and the
evidence your counsel submitted regarding those claims. However, the
Board was not persuaded. by any of the arguments of counsel or the
evidence you submitted that in that 4t would be in the interests of
justice to set aside your debt.
Therefore, 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 oF injustice. In
making this determination, the Board concurred with the comments and
Docket No.NRO8872-13
recommendation contained in the advisory opinion of the Stati Juage
navocate of the Naval Academy. Therefore, your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel wili be
Furnished upon request.
Finally, the Board did note that you are still entitied to serve in
military service in lieu of paying your educational debt as long es you
-5—t7 henner be Ae os tread TA
meet all tne prerequisite PeYULLemenes. zg you choose to co sc, YOU Bes
request an administrative correction through DFAS once your obligation in
service has been satisfied for a waiver of your educational debt.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your cease are such that more
Favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board
reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or
other matters not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it
is also 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 ig on the applicant to
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
FS pre SD, ott ene
ROBERT D. ALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1774 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2014. The Board carefully considered all of the arguments raised in your application and the evidence your counsel submitted regarding those claims. 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 | NR9215 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2014. Thus, your request for a personal appearance has been 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 | CY2009 | 10370-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2009. In August 2006, the Navy Personnel Command directed that you show cause before a board of inquiry (BOI) as to why you should be retained in the Naval service. Your resignation letter specifically noted that you understood that, if your resignation was accepted you “shall subsequently receive a certificate of general discharge” and that you “could be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07773-10
On or about 13 March 2006, you appeared before a Performance Review Board {PRB} convened to inquire into your aptitude and performance. In the Board's view, your request to disenroll was a voluntary decision made of your own free will. Docket No._7773-10 were aware that you could continue in the NROTC program as well.?
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00354-10
The Board found there was no injustice in the decision to disenroll you from the Naval Academy and there was no error or injustice in the decision to require full reimbursement for the educational costs expended on your behalf. The Board found that the regulations governing your attendance at the Naval Academy provide that a Midshipman who fails to complete the program requirements shall, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy, either serve on active duty for a specified period or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07595-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 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. Presumably, your statements were taken into consideration at all levels of review, but on 9 October 2009, NPC recommended that you be honorably...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00091
Counsel discusses the applicant’s problems with alcohol and states that alcohol dependency is recognized as a mental and physical disease. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: In his response to the Air Force evaluations, counsel disagrees with the assertion by AFPC/JA the applicant has not submitted evidence he is an alcoholic or suffers from alcoholism. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4913 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your application on 23 April 2014. 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. Consequently, “when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01155-02
In response to the draft action, on 11 March 1998 you submitted the following statement: I am aware of the consequences of this conviction in both the Naval Service and the Civil System and I accept full responsibility for my actions. On 14 December 1998 the Commander, Training Wing FIVE submitted a final Civil Action Report to Navy Personnel Command that stated, in part, as follows: This is not (LTJG M's; alcohol related incident February 1998 for a DUI offense on 22 July 1997 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07120-09
after careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found there was no error or injustice in your discharge from the Naval Reserve in 1955 when you entered the Naval Academy. While at the Naval Academy, you were simply not training as a member of the Naval Reserve and not available to be called upon to meet emergencies as a member of the Naval Reserve. In the Board's view, any errors made by prior panels in decisions issued many years ago should not be perpetuated...