DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

NAVY 

ANNEX

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

S

TRG
Docket No:
14 August 2002

7750-01

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 30 July 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 for six years on 17 January 1997. On
12 November 1998 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
insubordination.
second class  
you were notified that your top secret clearance was being
withdrawn due to your financial difficulties, demonstrated
immaturity and documented lack of reliability.
command withdrew the recommendation for advancement to  

Despite the NJP, you were frocked to radioman
On 4 January 1999

(RM2; E-5) on 10 December 1998.

FW2.

Subsequently, the

-

 
In your appeal of the NJP, you contended that your actions

On 11 February 1999, you received NJP for wrongfully failing to
The punishment
pay, and frauds against the United States.
imposed included a reduction in rate from RM3 (E-4) to RMSN
3) 
did not meet the legal elements of the offense of dishonorably
failing to pay a just debt.
false promises, or other distinctly culpable circumstances that
indicate a deliberate nonpayment or grossly indifferent attitude
You also pointed out that you
toward one's just obligations.
were notified and interrogated by your chain of command in June
1998 concerning nonpayment of child support, back child support
and legal fees.

You contended this is the same period for which

These elements were deceit, evasion,

(E-

you were charged with dishonorable failure to pay a just debt.
You believed that more than mere failure to pay the entire debt
immediately upon notice is required for criminal liability.
Finally you pointed out that you were paying less than the child
support amount directed by the court because you were appealing
that decision, and had established a payment plan to pay the
accrued legal fees.

In his endorsement on your appeal,
in part, as follows:

the commanding officer stated,

. 

. 

. it was brought to my attention that (he) has
. 
failed to pay a debt ordered by the State of North
Carolina Court on 14 April 1998 of approximately $2,600
for back child support from January 1998 until April
1998 and lawyers fees of approximately $2,800.
He does not deny
date, he has not made any payments.
the fact that the child is his, and has claimed her as
a dependent since May 1996.
pay child support when he declared his daughter as a
dependent, but he failed to do so. . . . . . I also learned
of a warrant for (his) arrest in North Carolina for
Since the mast, the
failure to pay child support.
command has received another indebtedness letter for
failing to pay back  
down payment on a vehicle.

aeloan which he took out to put a

(He) should have begun to

To this

. . . . .

The commanding officer believed that all of the elements of the
offense of dishonorably failing to pay a debt were met, and
stated as follows:

. 

. 

. (He) is required to pay $281 for child support

. 
twice a month in accordance with (the) court order and
currently only has an allotment for $200 per month. He
has not begun to pay the back child support that he was
ordered to pay in April of 1998.
advanced pay in December in the amount of approximately
$1,100 of which none was used to help pay those debts;
orders were not executed nor does he have any of the
$1,100 remaining.

Further (he) received

. 

. 

. (He) has not made any effort to pay the court

. 
ordered back child support and only recently made an
agreement with the lawyer for fees.

. 

. 

. (He) has begun to pay child support in the amount

. 
of $200 a month, however, he had not begun, nor made
any arrangement to pay his back child support; the
offense that he went to NJP for.
a month is less than half of what he was ordered to pay
by the court.  

In addition, the $200

.._...

2

(He) has brought discredit upon the Navy through his
Not only has he not
lack of action in this matter.
paid debts but it was brought to my attention at NJP
that he purchased an automobile in December which (sic)
monthly payments are in excess of $500 a month.
advised by his chain of command not to purchase a new
vehicle; he is grossly indifferent to the needs of his
daughter and his just debts. . . . .

He was

On 5 March 1999, your appeal was denied by the Commander,
Amphibious Group Two.

In your application you continue to assert, in effect, that the
You
NJP was too severe given the circumstances of your case.
point out that you had made arrangements to pay the debts and
notified your command about the indebtedness problems in an
attempt to receive help, but they used this information against
you.

In reaching its decision, the Board substantially agreed with the
comments made by the commanding officer in his endorsement on
your NJP appeal.
did not abuse his discretion when he imposed NJP and the
punishment imposed was not.too severe for the offenses you
committed.

The Board concluded that the commanding officer

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

3