Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04079-04
Original file (04079-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
 WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
        
        
         TRG
                                             Docket No: 4079-04
                                             24 August 2005


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 23 August 2005. Your allegations of error and 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.
You reenlisted in the Navy on 13 June 2001 as a petty officer second class (DK2; E-5). At that time you had completed over 17 years of active duty. Subsequently, you were advanced to petty officer first class (DK1; E-6).
Your performance evaluation for the period ending 15
November 2001 is excellent, with an individual trait average
(ITA) of 4.29 and laudatory comments. On 29 November 2001
you were awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation
Medal.
On 11 January 2002 you reported to a new command. In the performance evaluation for the period ending 15 November 2002, you were assigned a marginal mark of 2.0 in military bearing/character because of your failure to meet weight standards. However, the ITA was an acceptable 3.29.
A performance evaluation was submitted for the period ending
30 September 2003 to document your reduction in rate to DK2.
In that evaluation you were assigned adverse marks of 1.0 in
5 categories, which resulted in an ITA of 1.57. The
 evaluation comments noted a pattern of poor performance and conduct.
You received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 1 October 2003, The punishment imposed was the reduction in rate to DK2. You transferred to the Fleet Reserve in the rate of DK2 effective on 1 March 2004.
You have informed the examiner assigned to your case that you no longer have the NJP documentation in your possession. Additionally, efforts to obtain that documentation from your command have been unsuccessful.
You contend in your application that the NJP was based on a trumped up charge of larceny in reprisal for your complaints concerning fraternization and favoritism in the command. You further contend that the reduction in rate was too severe since you had to transfer to the Fleet Reserve as a DK2, which will have a substantial impact on your retired pay for the rest of your life.
The Board noted that you have not submitted any evidence to support your contention that the commanding officer abused his discretion when he imposed NJP, or that the punishment was not appropriate for the offense or offenses you committed. The Board also noted that you would have been given an opportunity to appeal the NJP, and you certainly would have done so if you believed that the NJP was unjustly imposed, or the punishment too severe. Further, if you believed the NJP proceedings were unfair, you could have requested that the charges be referred to trial by court-martial. Therefore, the Board concluded that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the commanding officer did not abuse his discretion and the punishment imposed was not too severe.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members 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,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02929-00

    Original file (02929-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Navy filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected by removing the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 23 April 1997 from his record, and/or reinstatement to DKl (E-6) with his original time in rate (TIR), He also requests a special selection board for chief petty officer. Since the NJP, Petitioner has reenlisted and has served On 25 July 2000 he reported aboard the The performance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03392-01

    Original file (03392-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2002. The members of the chain of command were present, made statements and were available to answer questions . He then told LT HI who then called Ms. D. The Board also considered the statement of the retired chief petty officer who stated that you were not derelict in your duties while you were treating him and that he did not see any disrespect.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08967-05

    Original file (08967-05.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his endorsement on your appeal CSG2 analyzed the evidence concerning the charge of indecent assault and stated that he believed a preponderance of the evidence supported his finding of guilty. He conceded that the evaluation at issue was erroneously prepared and indicated that action would be taken to file a corrected evaluation but strongly recommended that your application for advancement to chief petty officer be denied. The opinion concluded by stating that given the no misconduct...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07178-01

    Original file (07178-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 00260-00

    Original file (00260-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    investigation the this allegation of religious discrimination against (Petitioner) by his chain of command . his,request for Courts- Thus, (Petitioner) does not have a . the same degree of assistance in preparing his mitigation request as did Further, it does appear that he did make some efforts to do more than was absolutely required in the normal performance of his duties, Petitioner's actions.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01290-01

    Original file (01290-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an 1. enlisted member of the Naval Reserve, this Board requesting that his record be corrected by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code issued on 11 December 2001. filed an application with The Board, consisting of Mr. Adams, Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. 2. The Board The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05482-01

    Original file (05482-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 November 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. following an NJP for drug abuse, for an administrative discharge, processing in the record. As indicated, there is no evidence that the commanding...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11135-07

    Original file (11135-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 continued to be a member of the Navy Reserve and earned qualifying years in support of the Sea Cadet program. 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 | CY2002 | 06890-02

    Original file (06890-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The following day, your counsel responded that any Your counsel On 23 February 1998, the secretarial designee directed that your records be corrected to show that you were involuntarily discharged on 13 December 1995 by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05608-01

    Original file (05608-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    At the time of the NJP at issue, he was d. The clinic log shows that on 10 February 2001 Petitioner reported for duty at 0805 with an odor of alcohol, and that a DR M would perform a competence for duty examination. Accordingly, the majority concludes that the NJP and the related performance evaluation should be removed from Petitioner's record. Petitioner was incapacitated for duty as alleged, and the NJP should not be removed from his record.