DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No:
19 December
992-01
2002
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 17 December 2002.
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.
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.
You enlisted in the Navy on 5 July 1966 and served in an
outstanding manner until 1 April 1981.
were advanced to senior chief petty officer.
commissioned an ensign on
2 April 1981, continued to serve in an
outstanding manner and, on 1 February 1991, you were promoted to
lieutenant commander.
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.
OF 18 May 1994 that you had performed almost 27 years of
outstanding service, and issuance of the Letter of Censure two
years after your retirement constituted retribution that could
only destroy your life should it be made public.
an unspecified mistake that resulted in a letter of instruction.
Concerning the allegation of a hostile work environment, you
stated that the officer in question "created her own hostile
environment by not only making public her
everyone involved" but to portray me and others as some sort of
cabal
The Board noted that contentions in the
\\actions to get
You admitted to
'out to get
her'".
, .-
p
"leaked" to the
However, the Board is aware
You also
which essentially echo the
attachment to your application,
allegation in the rebuttal to the letter of censure.
contend that the Letter of Censure has been
detriment of your family and career.
that the Navy Inspector General found the sexual harassment
charge against you to be substantiated, and this finding
apparently resulted in the issuance of a letter of instruction.
It is clear that the Secretary of the Navy has the authority to
issue a Letter of Censure in cases such as yours.
privy to any staff input leading to the decision to issue the
Letter of Censure, the Board believed that the decision to issue
the letter would not have been made unless the Secretary was
convinced that it was necessary.
that do not require removal of such a letter based solely on the
The Board thus concluded that the
passage of a period of time.
Letter of Censure was properly issued and that there is no
evidence of an abuse of discretion in this matter.
Additionally, Navy regulations
Although not
Concerning your contention that the Letter of Censure has been
"leaked", information in your service record could not be
released outside the Department of the Navy without your
authorization.
has occurred.
part of a background investigation required by your employer.
There is no evidence that an unauthorized release
In this regard, you may have signed a release as a
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
,
,*
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600343
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-CS1, USNDocket No. Typed version does not reflect suspended separation for 6 months.040910: Letter of Applicant deficiencies submitted from Applicant counsel.040916: Commanding Officer, USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47), recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and Family Advocacy Program Failure. ...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05859
The reasons for the referral OPR were wrongful sexual contact with one female employee and sexual harassment of multiple female employees for which he received a LOR, UIF and CR action. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR, UIF and CR as served to the applicant, DPSID concludes that its mention on the contested report was proper and IAW all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015396
c. The applicant's commander and rating officials failed to consider the evidence she provided showing that the investigation was flawed and that the applicant conducted herself appropriately. e. in Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), the Senior Rater placed an "X" in the "Do Not Promote" block, indicated he senior rated (at the time) 27 officers of this grade, and that a completed DA Form 67-9-1 was received with this report and considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008867C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The IO noted that, before her complaint dated 23 July 1999, Ms. G___ did not tell the applicant that his actions and comments made her uncomfortable. The applicant, in his appeal to the DASEB, provided statements from Ms. R___, Chaplain G___, and Chaplain R___ as evidence that he did not sexually harass Ms. G___.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02532
The rater submitted a letter of support stating "Had I known that a privileging hearing would exonerate [the applicant] of these professional charges I would not have signed off on the OPR." The sexual harassment allegations were fabricated and Major --- and Lt Col --- escalated the allegations to eliminate the applicant. Lt Col --- presented the rater with the Report of Inquiry in which the JAG wrote and determined sexual harassment occurred.
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00673
SR D_ T_ presented a written statement, which I reviewed while in legal, which told of how she had overheard these girls talking about how they were going to "get me" and other things, but her statement was not even taken into account, nor was she present at the mast in front of LCDR C_. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component,...
As a result, the commander gave the applicant an LOR, initiated an unfavorable information file (UIF) and recommended that his name be removed from the promotion list in accordance with AFI 36-2504. Air Mobility Wing (AMW) Public Affairs Office commander did not put pressure on the applicant to remove the female individual and that the applicant should have stressed the professionalism of his office staff and not allowed the closeness and familiarity of his staff to get out of control. A...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-192
The JAG stated that the applicant’s command “properly followed [Coast Guard] regulations” in awarding the applicant NJP and that the collateral consequences of the NJP—including the disputed OER and the revocation of his temporary commission— “were carried out properly after affording Applicant all the due process rights to which he was entitled.” The JAG stated that under Article 15 of the UCMJ, NJP is a means for COs to deal with minor violations promptly and administratively and thus...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025674
The applicant requests the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) he received for sexual harassment in 2007 while acting as battery commander be moved to the restricted portion of his official military personnel file (OMPF) and he be allowed to remain on active duty in order to reach retirement eligibility in the event he is passed over for promotion this year. On 2 May 2007, the I Corps Commander reviewed the applicant's response and the recommendations of the applicant's chain of...