DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
DOARD TOM CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BIC ‘
Docket No. NR4781-14
13 Nov 14
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
12 November 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the following:
On 28 March 2012, Petitioner received a Nonjudicial Punishment for
Article 92 for disobeying an order “not to drink and drive by driving
after consuming alcohol.” Furthermore, Petitioner was administrative
separated for misconduct on 26 December 2013 per administrative
separation approval letter from the Commanding General for the
following reasons in addition to the basis for separation: failure to
attend three counseling sessions at the Deployment Weliness Clinic
after her initial DUI, which shows an’ unwillingness to utiiize the
resources afforded to her; and Petitioner's poor judgment in driving
under the influence a second time after receiving substance abuse
counseling in which she successfully completed the Prime for Life
program after her first DUI, which shows an inability to learn from
prior mistakes. Therefore, in accordance with Marine Corps Order
1040.31, Petitioner rates no entitlement to separation pay.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of
the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Docket No, NR4781-14
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 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
this case. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to ell cfkiciah wecertc..
ee oa
onsequently, 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,
a
ERT go. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08059-01
He feels that since his command did not notify CMC to delay his promotion until after his name appeared on the MARADMIN for Staff Noncommissioned Officer promotions for November, he should have been promoted. Following the conviction, his commanding officer recommended revocation of his promotion to gunnery sergeant per reference (a). That same month, Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS CASE OF STAFF SERGEANT (BCNR) APPLICATION IN THE SMC Petitioner's command recommended that CMC...
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 | CY2007 | 04959-07
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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 9 May 2007 to consider Gunnery contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20011001 to 20020520 (DC) was requested. After thorough review, the Board found that the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4958 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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. You were so discharged on 31 August 1990.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01697-07
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. Per MCO l610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three memberspresent, met on 10 January 2008 to considerpetition contained in reference (a)Removal of the fitness report for the period 20030418 to 20030829 (DC) was requested. Paragraph 3004.2c of reference (b), requires that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0258 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application-on 12 March 2014. The fact that civil authorities dismissed the charge of DUI does not invalidate the NUP you received for this: offense. 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 | NR5338 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2015. Your commanding officer’s decision to impose NUP was appropriate, and is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed. 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 | NR3128 14
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. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure, at which time you waived your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board. Nevertheless, the Board found that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10202-06
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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished uponrequestAlthough the Board voted not to remove the contested fitness report, you may submit the Cumberland County court order of dismissal to future selection boards.It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7266 13
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. On 24 January 1989, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge ‘action.