DEPARTMENT.OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-24906
SIN
Docket No: 2733-14
13 August 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 12 August 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.
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 Board found that on 12 February 2013, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful use of marijuana. You
received restriction and a reduction in paygrade. It appears you
did not submit an appeal to your commanding officer’s (CO)
decision. Based on the documentation submitted with your
application, on 25 June 2013, an administrative discharge board
(ADB) found that the prepondérance of the evidence did not
Support the basis for you to be separated from the Navy.
Additionally, you state that your request to have your NJP
set aside based on the findings of your ADB was denied by your
CO.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as the ADB’s finding
that by a preponderance of the evidence did not find that you
committed misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board concluded this
factor was not sufficient to remove the NUP from your official
records given the facts that you were found guilty and your
request to set it aside was denied by your CO. Additionally, it
is important to keep in mind that NUJP and ADR were two separate
fact finding processes, and the decision of the latter does not
cancel the findings of the former. This is especially true in
your case because the CO's decision to impose NJP was based on
facts and circumstances surrounding the incident, and the fact
that he did not consider the contrary finding of the ADB or the
opinions of additional witnesses to be any more persuasive than
his own initial inquiry into the matter. The Board concluded
, that your CO’s decision to impose NUP was appropriate, and it was
* administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed.
The Board further concluded that removing it would be unfair to
your peers, against whom you will compete 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,
‘ Rp BSD. a
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN ;
Acting Executive Director
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 | NR11993 14
- A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2015. The BOI found by a vote of three to zero, that you had committed misconduct, and although -the reason was supported by evidence, found that there was not sufficient evidence to recommend your separation from the Navy. The .Board found that the CO’s decision to.impose NJP was based on facts and circumstances surrounding the incident, and that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR767 15
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 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 record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of material error...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11597 14
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 3 March 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. After careful...
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 | CY2008 | 03653-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 2009. Concerning your request for removal of the two above fitness reports, the Board found that you did not make any contentions of error or injustice in connection with either report and no material errors are apparent in either. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08967-05
In his endorsement on your appeal CSG2 analyzed the evidence concerning the charge of indecent assault and stated that he believed a preponderance of the evidence supported his finding of guilty. He conceded that the evaluation at issue was erroneously prepared and indicated that action would be taken to file a corrected evaluation but strongly recommended that your application for advancement to chief petty officer be denied. The opinion concluded by stating that given the no misconduct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5468 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. 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 | CY2011 | 03502-11
A three-member panel of ‘the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2012. 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. Further, Navy regulations state that all CO’s must process for separation Sailors who have committed misconduct due to drug abuse, and since you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00471-09
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. Your commanding officer did not contest the findings or recommendation of the ADB; however, he denied your request that he set-aside the related NUP. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...