DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 2160-01
16 August 2001
Your allegations of error and
application for correction of your
provisions of Title 10, United
Dear
This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the
States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 15 August 2001.
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.
The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 20 September
1989 after more than seven years of prior active service.
You
served without incident until 26 January 1996 when you received
nonjudicial punishment for sexual harassment of three female
subordinates by asking them for dates and commenting on their
physical features on several occasions from October through
December 1995.
in pay grade from EN1 (E-6) to EN2 (E-5).
you were transferred to the Fleet Reserve as an EN2.
The Board noted your contention that you should have been allowed
to retire as an EN1 but found it insufficient to warrant
restoration to that rate.
In this regard, the Board could not
find any mitigating circumstances that constituted sufficient
grounds for restoration in rate, given the seriousness of the
offenses.
In this regard, the Board noted that you sexually
harassed three different junior female Sailors on more than one
occasion over a protracted period of time.
Accordingly, your
application has been denied.
The names and votes of the members
The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction
On 31 December 1997
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,
bEAN PFEIFFER
W.
Executive Director
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08125-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2011. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 13164 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2012. On 18 April 2011, a report of the NUP was forwarded to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC). The results of the BOI were forwarded and you were informed that you would be retained in the Navy, but that the NUP would become part of your official record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11317-06
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 restoration of those qualifications is an administrative matter within the jurisdiction of your commanding officer. 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 | CY2009 | 05445-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2010. 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 counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07317-01
ItGKBtt is assigned when Separation code discharged by reason of misconduct due an individual is to civil conviction.4 q- On 20 June 2001 Petitioner's counsel faxed a supplemental letter of deficiency to NAVPERSCOM responding, in part, as follows to the 4 May 2001 letter from COMPHIBGRU TWO: Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-710 if the (ADB) finds that the preponderance of the evidence does not support one or more of the reasons for separation alleged and recommends retention then the Separation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 08179-11
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 two occasions, 19 September 1996, and 19 November 2007, you signed and acknowledged the Navy’s policy concerning sexual harassment. commanding officer submitted a request for detachment for cause by reason of sexual harassment, which you were allotted sufficient time to respond.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06047-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is attached. ons of the female captain not- ad a duty as an officer and a and as a Staff Platoon Commander at The Basic School, omments in Section K4 of the ntire situation in its He...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02286-00
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. based on the evidence before him, The Board concluded The Board also noted your performance of duties prior to and subsequent to the NJP, but found that it was insufficient to warrant the deletion of established misconduct from your record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00992-01
You retired on 1 April 1993. During this period, you You were You pointed out in your rebuttal On 12 May 1994, the Secretary of the Navy issued you a WSecretarial Letter of Censure" for sexual harassment of a female lieutenant, and for creating a hostile work environment after she made allegations against you. It is clear that the Secretary of the Navy has the authority to issue a Letter of Censure in cases such as yours.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008076
The applicant requests correction of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) to: * remove non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 15 March 2012, (hereinafter referred to as the contested NJP) * restore his date of rank (DOR) to 1 August 2011 as his DOR to staff sergeant (SSG) * remove the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period ending on 24 March 2012 2. He provided a Memorandum...