DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 0198-18
May 14 2018 

Dear: 


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 28 March 2018. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror 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, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 

On 13 May 2017, you were cited by civil authorities for driving under the influence of alcohol. 
On 26 July 2017, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation) and Article 111 (drunkenness or reckless operation of a vehicle) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The record reflects that you waived your right to demand trial by court"martial in lieu of NJP, that you were given an opportunity to consult with counsel prior to your decision to accept NJP, and that you did not appeal your NJP. On 12 October 2017, you requested the NJP be rescinded after the charge of driving under the influence was dismissed in civil court. On 26 October 2017, your Commanding Officer denied your request to rescind the NJP. 

The Board carefully considered your desire to remove the NJP of 26 July 2017 from your official military personnel file. The Board considered your contentions that the underlying facts and  evidence supporting your NJP were inaccurate and ruled by civil authorities to be suppressed and ultimately destroyed; the dismissed charges prove that the evidence against you did not support a conviction; the NJP was imposed prior to sufficient opportunity to investigate the case against you and without an opportunity for your attorney to challenge the validity of the evidence; and, in his forwarding endorsement of your request to rescind the NJP, your Officer in Charge referenced evidence that had been suppressed and ordered destroyed by civil authorities, which  shows that the NJP was not based on valid or sufficient evidence to support the NJP. The Board noted that jurisdiction of the Commanding Officer to discipline a service member for misconduct is distinct from civilian authorities' jurisdiction to criminally punish a citizen. The Board determined that your Commanding Officer's decision to impose NJP was appropriate, within his discretionary authority, and administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed. The Board concluded that you did not sufficiently substantiate the existence of an error or injustice.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence 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,