DEPARTMENT  OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TRG
Docket No: 7178-01
5 September 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 27 August 2002.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
your application,
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.

Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
together with all material submitted in support

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 reenlisted in the Navy on 13 June 1997 for four years. At
that time you had completed about 14 years of active duty.
May 2002 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations
of Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The specifications read as follows:

On 11

. . . . . . 

. on or about 20 October 2000,

In that (you)  
(were) derelict in the performance of those duties in
that he willfully failed to follow the retest
procedures outlines in the Maintenance Overhaul Manual
during a PMS check of the barricade arresting gear
engine, as it was his duty to do.

. on or about 20 October 2000,

In that (you)  
wrongfully endeavor to influence the testimony of
C) as a witness before the Ship's Executive
(ABEAN 
Officer in (your   case)  by instructing  
C) to
testify falsely concerning his knowledge of improper
maintenance 
arresting gear engine.

du?ing a PMS check of the barricade

. . . . . . 

(ABEAN 

The punishment

forfeiture of pay totaling $300

The next two specifications charged you with attempting to
influence the testimony of ABE3 I and ABE2 B.
imposed was 15 days restriction,
and a reduction in rate from ABE1 (E-6) to ABE2 (E-5).
In your appeal of the NJP you contended that you were unjustly
punished and the punishment was disproportionate to the offenses.
You contended that the original statements taken by the command
investigators were improperly destroyed which prevented you from
adequately defending yourself at   a court-martial.
You pointed
out that because of the destroyed statements, the command dropped
the court-martial and imposed the NJP at issue.
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.
believed that you would have been able to prove your innocence at
a court-martial.

You further

You

The commanding officer recommended that your appeal be denied and
stated in his endorsement, in part, as follows:

. 

. 

. (His) case was originally referred to a summary
The case was then
Charges were

. 
court-martial, which he refused.
referred to a special court-martial.
later withdrawn and sent back to nonjudicial punishment
when it was discovered that the divisional investigator
had, without proper authority, destroyed the witness
statement regarding the incident . . . .

. 

. 

. When ABE2 (B) informed the chain of command that
ugun-decked" and the

. 
the maintenance check had been  
chain of command began to question the witnesses,
(Petitioner) contacted the witnesses, some at home, and
attempted to influence their testimony regarding the
exact number of times the test had been performed.
These facts were corroborated by witness statements
and testimony introduced at nonjudicial punishment on
11 May 2001.
evidence that (he) had committed the offenses charged.

I found by a preponderance of the

The commanding officer further stated that the other individuals
involved received punishments that included forfeitures of pay
and a suspended reduction in rate or,
airmen, the cases were dismissed with a warning.
that the punishments imposed were commensurate with the degree of
culpability.
clear to you that he did not impose any punishment during the 21
November 2000 hearing and no jeopardy attached.
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 not an NJP punishment.
denial of leave was not a punitive measure but an administrative
measure taken with due consideration for the operational
commitments of the command and the needs of the service.

Finally, he pointed out that the

aircrews who operated aircraft from
Additionally, he believed that attempting to:

The commanding officer concluded his endorsement by stating that
the improperly conducted maintenance could have had disastrous
and deadly consequences for the members of your division working
the flight deck, and for the  
that flight deck.
alter the testimony of others regarding the incident was not in
keeping with the level of integrity he expected from a first
The commanding officer believed that the
class petty officer.
NJP was appropriate given the nature of your offenses, and the
punishment imposed was proportionate to the offenses and in
keeping with the punishments awarded in the companion cases. On
8 August 2001, the Commander, Carrier Group Six, denied the NJP
appeal.

Since the NJP you have incurred additional obligated service and
will continue to serve until you qualify for transfer to the
Fleet Reserve in June 2003.

In your submission to the Board you essentially raise the same
You point out your
issues set forth in your appeal of the NJP.
many years of good service prior to the NJP and again contend, in
effect, that the punishment imposed was disproportionate because
you will probably transfer to the Fleet Reserve in pay grade E-5.

In the absence of such evidence, the Board

The Board noted that no evidence was submitted to support any of
your contentions.
substantially concurred with the commanding officer's comments in
the endorsement on your appeal and the action taken by the
Commander, Carrier Group Six.
commanding officer did not abuse his discretion when he imposed
NJP and the punishment imposed was not too severe.

The Board concluded that the

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
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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

3

record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director