Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2573 14
Original file (NR2573 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7OUt S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

SIN
Docket No: 2573-14
27 March 2015

 

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 March 2015. 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 requlations 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 21 October 2003. On 6 January 2011, you received
nonjudicial punishment for drug and disorderly conduct. On

7 January 2011, you submitted a letter of apology, were counseled
regarding your deficiency in your performance and conduct, and
warned that further misconduct could result in administrative
discharge action. You did not submit an appeal to your
commanding officer’s (CO) decision. You remained on active duty
until you were released from active duty and transferred to the
Marine Corps Reserve on 10 May 2013.

The Board concluded that your commanding officer’s decision to
impose NUJP was appropriate, and it was administratively and
procedurally correct as written and filed. The Board further
concluded that the removal of the NJP or administrative remarks
dated 7 January 2011 is not warranted, and that such action would
be unfair to your peers, against whom you will compete for
promotions and assignments. 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.

Sincerely,

ROBERT J. O’ NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4963 14

    Original file (NR4963 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. On 3 February 2011, you received NJP for disobedience and communicating a threat.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6276 14

    Original file (NR6276 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 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 | NR9579 14

    Original file (NR9579 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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. At that time you were assigned an RE-3P reentry code.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6324 14

    Original file (NR6324 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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. In this regard, you were assigned the most appropriate reentry code based on your circumstances.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2134 14

    Original file (NR2134 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Shortly thereafter, on 30 March 2009, you were counselled and advised that because of your NJP you would be assigned an RE-3C reenlistment code. 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 | NR5112 14

    Original file (NR5112 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 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. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of applying for correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1973 14

    Original file (NR1973 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. 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 error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1122 14

    Original file (NR1122 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 2015. in this regard, you were assigned the most favorable reentry code based on your circumstances. The RE-3C reentry code may not prohibit reenlistment, but requires.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8499 13

    Original file (NR8499 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 14 February to 10 June 2011 and your two rebuttals, each dated 8 June 2011, to the service record page 11 ("Administrative Remarks (1070)") entries dated 25 May and 1 June 2011, respectively. Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2015. Since the Board found insufficient grounds to remove either of your failures of selection for promotion, it had...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5420 14

    Original file (NR5420 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 2015. Accordingly, your application to reduce your contract term to reflect 4 years, as well as your request for a personal appearance before the Board, have been denied. New evidence is evidence Docket No.