DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
TAL
Docket No: 4292-14
14 August 2014
This is.in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, and Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 6 August 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.
The Board found that on 13 May 2010 you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for two instances of abusive sexual contact and
assault. -: The punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty,
a reduction in paygrade (suspended for six months) and a
forfeiture of pay. The record reflects that you did not appeal
the NUP, and as such, presumably accepted the findings of guilt.
Subsequently, administrative separation procedures were
initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious
offense. You elected to have your case considered by an
administrative discharge board (ADB). However, the ADB
recommended retention. Your attorney submitted a request to set
aside the NUP to your commanding officer. Your commanding
officer informed you that after a thorough review and thoughtful
consideration were given to your request, the NJP was just and
your request was denied.
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. The Board concluded that an ADB’s decision to retain
you in no way negated your commanding officer's decision to
ro impose the foregoing NUP. Finally, no NJP is removed from a
record merely because of the passage 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 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,
Re SD - eel
ROBERT D. ALMAN
Acting Executive Director
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 | CY2013 | NR7340 13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7015. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 2014. On 29 August 1980, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) recharacterized your service as general under honorable conditions by reason of unfitness.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06169-10
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 25 September 1990 an ADB recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | CY2010 | 08424-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 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. 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 | 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 | CY2013 | NR5901 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 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 | CY2013 | NR4071-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 March 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, . The separation authority agreed with the finding and recommendation of the ADB and directed your commanding officer to issue you an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0424 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 March 2014. You also received an adverse performance evaluation for 16 September 2010 to 6 February 2011. 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 | NR8250 13
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 April 1987, you were advised that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) due to misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board found those factors insufficient to warrant changing the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7594 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).