DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
POAPD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD. SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
SIN
Docket No: 1352-14
11 December 2014
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 18 November 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 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
27 December 1993. On 14 February 1997 and 12 February 2012, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence,
drunken or reckless operation of a motor vehicle, and conduct
prejudice to good order and discipline. As a result of your last
NJP, a line of duty investigation (LOD) into injuries sustained
by you was conducted. On 12 August 2013, the Commander, U.S.
Fleet Cyber Command determined that your injuries were considered
to have been incurred in the line of duty, and not due to
misconduct, constituting final action. On 31 December 2013, you
were honorably released from active duty and transferred to the
Fleet Reserve.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of satisfactory service and desire to be reinstated
to paygrade E-6 based on your LOD investigation. Nevertheless,
the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to
reinstate you to paygrade E-6 as a result of the LOD
investigation. It is important to keep in mind that your NJP and
LOD investigation were two separate fact finding processes, and
the decision of the latter does not cancel out the finding of the
former. This is especially true in your case because your
commanding officer’s (CO) decision to impose NJP was based on a
valid incident report, and since you presented no significant
evidence during the LOD investigation that the CO did not
consider at NUP. Additionally, the LOD investigation states, in
part, that your accident and resultant injuries appeared to have
been the result of negligent actions on your part, in combining
alcohol with pain and cold medications, and then driving late at
night when you had presumably had been awake for a significant
period of time. 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 its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence within one year from the date of the Board's decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its decision in your case. 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.
Sincgrely
ROBERT J. O’NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03604-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 2001. were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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. Reference (a) requested comments and recommendations in Petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07108-00
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 connection it substantially concurred with the The Board was not persuaded that the line of duty(LOD)/misconduct determination made in your case is erroneous or unjust. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10937 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 06890-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The following day, your counsel responded that any Your counsel On 23 February 1998, the secretarial designee directed that your records be corrected to show that you were involuntarily discharged on 13 December 1995 by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016945
If a LOD determination is required, information from the medical records will be used to support a determination that an EPTS condition was or was not aggravated by military service. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show an LOD finding of In Line of Duty...
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008449
On 9 May 2013, the approving authority reviewed the case and stated that in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-4 (LOD Policy, Procedures, and Investigations), chapter 2-6, paragraph 6(c), "Line of Duty Determinations must be supported by substantial evidence and by a greater weight of evidence than supports any different conclusion. Paragraph 4-8(e) states information from the medical records will be used to support a determination that an EPTS condition was or was not aggravated by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9684 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 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. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017454
Counsel states, in effect, that the LOD determination should be changed to IN LINE OF DUTY because the applicable regulation provides that an injury, death, or disease is presumed to be in LOD unless refuted by substantial evidence contained in the investigation and the only way there could have been a finding of not in LOD would have been by providing substantial evidence to refute the rebuttable presumption of in LOD and neither the National Guard Bureau (NGB) or the U.S. Army Human...