DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-24890
SUN
Docket No: 767-15
24 March 2015
Dear Garey
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 3 March 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 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
On 20 May 2014, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
pandering and prostitution. The Board also found that on
24 September 2014, you were informed that civil authorities
declined to prosecute your case. However, this dismissal was in
no way related to the NUP you received from your commanding
officer (CO) on 20 May 2014. Additionally, it is important to
keep in mind that the NUP and civil actions were two separate
fact finding processes, and the decision of the latter does not
cancel out the finding of the former. Your CO’s decision to
impose NUJP was appropriate, and is administratively and
procedurally correct as written and filed. The Board further
concluded that the removal of the NUP is not warranted, and that
such action would be unfair to your peers, against whom you will
compete for promotions and assignments. Finally, the Board also
noted that you accepted NUP and did not appeal the finding of
guilt. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
It is regrettable 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 record, the burden is on
the applicant to demonstrate the existence of material error or
injustice.
Sincergly,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
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 | CY2014 | NR11993 14
- 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | NR1352 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 2014. As a result of your last NJP, a line of duty investigation (LOD) into injuries sustained by you was conducted. 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 | NR0655 14
A three-member panel of thie Board for Correction of Naval’ Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2014. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was “insufficient to establish Ebe 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 | NR4381 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2015. Documentary naberdall 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. This is especially true in your case because your CO’s decision to administratively separate you was based on facts and circumstances surrounding...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2151 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2015. , The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your character of service and assertion of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a reason for your misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...