DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Y
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 2286-00
31 October 2000
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 October 2000.
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.
Your allegations of error and
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 18 April 1994
after more than three years of prior active service.
reflects that you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 19
January 1999 for engaging in inappropriate social interaction
that was unduly familiar and did not respect a student/staff
relationship, and for sexual harassment of another member by
The punishment imposed
creating a hostile working environment.
consisted of restriction and extra duty for 45 days and reduction
from AT2 (E-5) to AT3 (E-4).
appeal was denied.
You appealed the NJP, but your
Your record
The Board noted your contentions but found them insufficient to
warrant either the removal of the NJP or your restoration to AT2.
In this regard, the Board believed that the commanding officer
acted reasonably in concluding,
that you committed the foregoing offenses.
that the commanding officer was in the best position to resolve
the factual issues and to impose punishment.
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.
In this regard, the Board concluded that such action would be
unfair to your peers against whom you will compete for promotions
and assignments.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and
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,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00537-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 10 May 2001 you submitted an appeal to The punishment imposed was a On 2 June 2001, your suspended separation action was vacated based on your continued misconduct, however, final action of the separation was held in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07178-01
contended that the initial NJP, at which the commanding officer' referred the charges to a court-martial, imposed punishment and that the subsequent proceedings was double jeopardy. (His) case was originally referred to a summary The case was then Charges were . out, in effect, that your relief from maintenance duties and The commanding officer stated that he made it in the case of the junior He believed He also pointed 2 assignment to the training division was an administrative action and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02809-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2008. SECNAV, the discharge authority, approved the foregoing recommendations and directed discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 31 July 2006 you were so separated. The Board noted that the NUP, punitive letter of reprimand, and SECNAV directed actions for discharge by reason of misconduct, and the recouping of educational...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04373-01
considered your application on 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. Further, the Board noted the aggravating factor that you waived an ADB, the one opportunity you had to show why you should be retained or discharged under honorable conditions. require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to indivi- The duals discharged by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07312-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 April 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. NJPs, the Board concluded that the Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05360-99
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner's request 1. that his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 6 June 1956 be overturned and that he be reinstated to the grade of sergeant. Our Petitioner was punished at NJP Background. motivation behind the NJP, While it fails to establish any discriminatory Petitioner had the opportunity to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05539-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2009. 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 | CY2006 | 01897-06
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.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 on 17 February 1998 you reenlisted in the Navy after nearly ten years of prior...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03127-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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. The Board concluded that your commanding officer's decision to impose the foregoing NUP, and the punishment imposed, was appropriate, and that it...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00998-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . 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 material error or injustice.