DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
TLG
Docket No: 0667-14
2 June 2015
This is in reference to your Application for Correction of
Military Record, DD Form 149, dated 8 January 2015. You have
requested that this Board review and remove the nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) you received on 14 March 2014. In this regard,
a thorough review of your official military personnel file
(OMPF) does not reveal the documentation pertaining to the NUP,
and as such, no action is required by this Board. If, in the
future, the NUP is filed in your OMPF, you may then reapply for
Board review. However, please be advised that you should
exhaust all of your administrative remedies within the Navy,
specifically, your chain-of-command, prior to petitioning the
Board for review of your OMPF.
In accordance with the foregoing, your case is hereby
administratively closed without prejudice. You may contact Mr.
Grayson at 703-604-3419 if you have any further concerns or
questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
By direction
NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR1470 15
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 EGA Docket No: 1476-15 23 March 2015 Dear (iii Tp annpeeey This is in reference to your Application for Correction of Military Record, DD Form 149, dated 3 February 2015. You have requested that this Board review and remove the nonjudicial punishments (NUP) you received on 23 August 2003, and 28 May 2004. In this regard, a thorough review of your official military...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR951 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on ll February 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, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6447 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all references regarding imposition of a nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for willful disobedience. In this regard, these AOs recommend Petitioner's request be denied because he did receive NJP on 11 May 2007, and was properly issued an adverse FITREP as a result of the NUP. REED Recorder S....
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 | 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 | NR3945 14
aA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2015. Additionally, the Board noted that you did not appeal the NUP and concluded that its removal from your record was unwarranted. 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 | NR7262 14_Redacted
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 | NR5734 14
Enclosures {1) through (3) apply. rebuttal dated 6 April 2009. d. An AO, “enclosure (4), received from the HOMC Military Personnel Law Branch, regarding Petitioner’s request to remove the documents which references the NJP recommends relief. In this regard, and especially in light of the favorable AO, the Board substantially concurs with the comments contained in the AO and concludes that in the absence of the NUP document, the documentation referencing it, as it appears in the record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4513 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2015. Arter 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 | NR4519 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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...