Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6087 14
Original file (NR6087 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001

TAL
Docket No: 6087-14
14 August 2014

 

naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 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.

The Board found that on 11 April 2012 you received nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) for failure to obey a written regulation by
failing to properly complete the Tagout Record Sheet. The
punishment imposed was a reduction in paygrade, restriction and
extra duty, which was suspended for six months. The record
reflects that you did not appeal the NUP, and as such,
presumably accepted the finding of guilt.

. The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed

all potentially mitigating factors, such as your overall record
of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant removing the NJP. The Board
noted that your commanding officer’s decision to impose the
foregoing NJP, and the punishment thereto, was appropriate, and
that it was administratively and procedurally correct as written
and filed. Finally, no NUP is removed from a record merely
because of the passage of time. 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,

TR DS Se

ROBERT D.
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7262 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7262 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 24 June 2015. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2733 14

    Original file (NR2733 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 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 | CY2014 | NR11993 14

    Original file (NR11993 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 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 | CY2014 | NR4292 14

    Original file (NR4292 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 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 | NR3488 14

    Original file (NR3488 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 25 March 2015. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insuffi 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 06939 12

    Original file (06939 12.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. The Board thus concluded that there was no error or injustice in your NUP. 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 | NR4913 13

    Original file (NR4913 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your application on 23 April 2014. In this regard, the Board concluded that there was no evidence in the record to support reinstating you to paygrade E-6, and in the absence of such evidence, and because you accepted NUP, the Board concluded that your commanding officer’s decision to impose it, and the punishment imposed, were appropriate. Consequently, “when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR767 15

    Original file (NR767 15.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (NR11597 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | NR5468 14

    Original file (NR5468 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 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...