Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4295 14
Original file (NR4295 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

  
  

‘ak “tile ih
Fn rai A
ok. os fi
o oS
“a Pt Sa am
“SL

JDR
Docket No: 4295-14
30 April 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.

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute
of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
Sitting in executive session, considered your application on

17 April 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

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, began a period of active duty on

25 September 1974, and satisfactorily served without
disciplinary incident for about four years and three months.
However, on 10 January 1979, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for a five day period of unauthorized absence. On

15 May 1985, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM)
of wrongful use of marijuana and sentenced to a reduction in
paygrade to E-5. On 22 February 1989, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for making a false official statement. You
served without further disciplinary incident and on
1 October 2004, you were honorably discharged and transferred to

the Retired List.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service and desire to have your court-martial
conviction overturned. The Board also considered your assertion
of improprieties in drug-testing procedures and results.
Nevertheless, based on the information currently contained in
your record, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant relief in your case. In regard to your
assertion of improprieties, be advised that the Board has no
authority to consider assertions pertaining to improprieties,
claims of legal error, or allegations of impartiality at courts-
Martial. Further, the Board does not have the authority to
overturn the findings of guilty rendered by courts-martial. In

this regard, the Board must restrict its review to the fairness

of the sentence imposed. 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 | NR6316 14

    Original file (NR6316 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 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. 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 | NR3201 14

    Original file (NR3201 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. 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 therecf£, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2400 14

    Original file (NR2400 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 23 March 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. The Board also considered your assertion that the GCM sentence was.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR660 14

    Original file (NR660 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 21 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. Nonetheless, your request was denied and the BCD was subsequently approved at all levels of review, and on 30 January 1976, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR764 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR764 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although your application was not filed in a time Board found it in the interest of justice to wai limitations and consider your application on its three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2015. After consulting with legal counsel, you lected to present your case to an administrative discharge board — (0 94...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5865 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR5865 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together ith all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, applicable statutes, regulations, You enlisted in the Marine Corps iod of active duty on 28 April 1969. Further, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to change it now. New evidence is evidence not previously considered...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4296 14

    Original file (NR4296 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 22 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4296 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR4296 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 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. 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 | NR8645 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR8645 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 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 and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5645 14

    Original file (NR5645 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 22 May 2015. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, desire to upgrade your discharge, and your assertion that you suffered a traumatic head injury while serving in the Marine Corps. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to...