Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00888-05
Original file (00888-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG
Docket No:       888-05
 16 March 2005
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF OS2~UhIIIEhIIhIhhUIuI~ USN,

Ref:     (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:     (1) Case Summary
(2) Subject’s naval record

 1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member in the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that documentation showing a one day period of unauthorized absence be removed from his record.
2.       The Board, consisting of Mr. Lippolis, Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. Dunn, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 1 March 2005 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3.       The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:
a.       Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b.       Petitioner’s application was filed in a timely manner.
c.       Filed in Petitioner’s record is a Record of Unauthorized Absence (NAVPERS 1070/606), showing that he was an unauthorized absentee from 1400, 6 March, until he surrendered at 1500, 7 March 2002, a period of 25 hours. However, in his performance evaluation for the period ending 15 March 2002, his individual trait average (ITA) was 3.57 with a “must promote” recommendation. There is no mention of a period of unauthorized absence in the evaluation comments. Additionally, there is no record of disciplinary action.
d.       Subsequently, Petitioner was advanced to petty officer
 first class (OS1; E-6) and continues to serve in an excellent manner.
e.       Petitioner contends that the NAVPERS 1070/606 was submitted in error and that he was not an unauthorized absentee during the period indicated. With his application, he has submitted a letter from his division officer at the time that states, in part, as follows:
A review of my Division Officer’s Notebook from my tenure (at that command) .... does not indicate any period of unauthorized absence for you from 06 March 2002 to 07 March 2002. What I do possess is a one-day special liberty chit from you for that period. I believe that you may have been mustered in error on the morning of 07 March 2002 and through some administrative error, this was never corrected. ...
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. It is clear that there was no disciplinary action taken, and no mention of the period of unauthorized absence in the performance evaluation for the period ending only eight days after the alleged unauthorized absence. Further, his division officer states that there was an approved special liberty for the period in question. Therefore, the Board concludes that he was not an unauthorized absentee on 6 and 7 March 2002 and the NAVPERS 1070/606 should be removed from his record.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record by removing the Record of Unauthorized Absence (NAVPERS 1070/606) showing that he was an unauthorized absentee on 6 and 7 March 2002.
b. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.
c. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner’s naval record be returned to the Board, together with this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and

2
complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.
 ROBERT D. ZSALMAN        ALAN E.
Recorder         Acting Recorder
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.




































3

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6484 14

    Original file (NR6484 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference {a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the Record of Unauthorized Absence (NAVPERS 1070/606) dated 14 October 2003 be - removed from his record. The Board, consisting of Mr. Clemmons, Mr. Ivins, and Ms. Tollefson, reviewed: Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 16 October 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4031 14

    Original file (NR4031 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7601S. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an active duty enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that the Record of Unauthorized Absénce (NAVPERS 1070/606) form, dated 4 April 2011, covering the period from 29 to 31 March 2011, be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) . Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01429-12

    Original file (01429-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Mr. Hotopp, Ms. Barrow, and Mr. Blanchard, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 14 February 2012 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board concludes that the available evidence in the record shows that Petitioner’s period of UA from 31 December 2008 to 4 January 2009,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07049-00

    Original file (07049-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    '1552 Encl: (1) Case summary (2) Subject's naval record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the United States Navy, applied to this that his naval record be corrected Board requesting, in effect, by upgrading his discharge, separation, and by removing all references to a period of unauthorized absence (UA). the Board notes the document Concerning the UA of 15 to 26 March 1997 shown on the P. the NJP and the DD Form 214, Petitioner has...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08054-01

    Original file (08054-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In his application, Petitioner contends that it was unfair to impose NJP for the four day period of UA because bailed myself out and would have if I knew I was going to be charged..." He points out the statement of the SSGT to the effect that he would be placed on leave and states that this individual was unavailable during the NJP process. together with a copy of Caron cannot go along with the recommendation of the majority d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's for...

  • 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600386

    Original file (ND0600386.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00386 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060110. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the attached documents:Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (Civilian Counsel):“ PETITION FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE NAVY DISCHARGE REVIEW...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03433-08

    Original file (03433-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by changing his primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) to 0351 (infantry assaultman) ; removing the adverse fitness report for 15 September 2002 to 13 March 2003, a copy of which is at Tab A (enclosure (2) shows the Headquarters Marine Corps {(HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB} has...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02895-06

    Original file (02895-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 203705100 TRGDocket No: 2895-061 November 2006From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OFRef: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual completes an extended period of active duty and is serving in pay grade E-2. Since he was recommended for advancement and retention in his last...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02415-09

    Original file (02415-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 1i(b) (“Administrative Remarks (1070)"} entry dated i? ‘CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board substantially concurs with enclosure (2) in finding the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, removal of the page 11(d) entry dated 8 March 2002, with the rebuttal dated 12 March 2002, as...