Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 01159-05
Original file (01159-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECOR~SJ
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
         WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



                 
         SJN               Docket No 01159 - 05
                           26 August 2005



This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 24 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
You were commissioned in the Naval Reserve on 3 February 1988 and began an uninterrupted period of active duty on 7 January 1991. You served well and without disciplinary incident for more than eight years. During this period, you received excellent fitness reports and several personal decorations.
On 1 September 1999 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to comply with the Joint Ethics Regulation by accessing pornographic web sites on the command internet, making false official statements to officers that you had not accessed pornographic web sites on the internet, but had failed to properly log off and someone else had accessed the computer while you were still logged on, and conduct unbecoming and officer and gentleman in that you instructed military subordinates to destroy evidence linking you to the accessing of pornographic material. You received a punitive letter of reprimand.
On 16 September 1999 you appealed the NJP, but the appeal was denied on 1 October 1988. On 15 October 1988 the commanding officer (CO) forwarded the report of NJP to the Naval personnel command recommending detachment for cause (DFC), removal of your name from the promotion list, and that you be required to show
 cause for retention in the Naval Service. You were required to show cause for retention, but a board of inquiry retained you in the Naval Reserve. Additionally, although DFC was approved, you were retained as command chaplain.
On 28 July 2000 the Secretary of the Navy determined that your name should be removed from the fiscal year 1999 Promotion List of lieutenant commander, stating that the promotion board was not aware of your misconduct when it recommended you for promotion. However, he also stated that you should be given an opportunity to prove your value to the Navy and directed your retention on active duty to ensure your consideration by the fiscal year 2002 Selection Board. Since the NJP, you have continued to perform well earning further awards and receiving excellent fitness reports.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your excellent performance both before an after the NJP and all of your contentions. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to remove the NJP from your official records. The Board concurred with the investigating officer’s report that you accessed hundreds pornographic sites on the internet, you lied when confronted by the commanding officer by stating that someone else had access the web sites, that you attempted to cover your accessing the sites by erasing the history files on the computer and directed junior personnel to delete all the internet files. Additionally, for the reasons set forth in the Commander, Naval Base Norfolk letter of 1 October 1998 denying your NJP appeal. 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

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001760

    Original file (20140001760.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's earlier request to remove the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 3 May 2000, and all relevant documents from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). They conducted a search of his work computer and then went to his home searching for child pornography. b. Paragraph 3-6 addresses filing of NJP and provides that a commander's decision whether to file a record of NJP in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02982-01

    Original file (02982-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    websites on your office computer. The Board You are advised that corrections to block 18 of your DD Form 214 are administrative in nature and do not require action by the Board. 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9901346

    Original file (9901346.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a lieutenant colonel, he was subjected to an Officer Grade Determination (OGD) because of a letter of reprimand (LOR) and an Article 15. A complete copy of the DPPRRP evaluation, with attached Report of Investigation, is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the advisory opinion, the applicant stated that he accidentally viewed some nude photographs while trying to learn how to use the Internet. The evidence of record reflects that the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03086

    Original file (BC-2002-03086.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 Jul 00, the applicant was notified by his Wing Commander that he was considering whether to recommend to the Numbered Air Force (NAF) Commander that he be punished under Article 15 for alleged misconduct in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, in that he did on divers occasions, between on or about 9 Nov 99 and on or about 25 Jan 00, fail to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 6, Air Force Instruction 33-129, Transmission of Information via the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006313

    Original file (20140006313.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A DA Form 4856 shows the applicant was counseled, on 27 March 2003, for leaving his place of duty without notifying his supervisor. On 24 June 2003, the applicant was separated with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03464

    Original file (BC-2004-03464.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The AFOSI Media Analysis Report (Exhibit 4 of the AFOSI Report of Investigation (ROI)) was completed on 12 Aug 03, and summarized that the applicant’s computer had 16 pornographic pictures, 35 pornographic movie clips and 14 Power Point Presentation files containing pornographic pictures saved to different folders which were located on the hard drive. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPP notes AFLSA/JAJM determined there were no legal errors requiring corrective...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003496

    Original file (20080003496.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period ending 30 June 2006, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that all related adverse information be removed from his Security Clearance File. In an undated letter, Mr. Richard M____ stated that he was asked to conduct a review of various documents in reference to an incident wherein the applicant was accused of viewing...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001334

    Original file (20150001334.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests reconsideration, in part, of his earlier request for: * removal of all references to the applicant's Army Grade Determination Board (AGDRB) decision and reduction in rank/grade from colonel (COL)/O-6 to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O-5 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) * correction of the applicant's retired rank/grade to show COL/O-6 2. b. Paragraph 4a states, "Members of the United States Armed Forces, and other persons serving with, employed by or accompanying...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00944

    Original file (BC-2003-00944.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    A member accepting non-judicial punishment proceedings may have a hearing with the imposing commander. Members who wish to contest their commander’s determination or the severity of the punishment imposed may appeal to the next higher commander. The applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the imposing commander or the reviewing authority abused their discretionary authority, that his substantial rights were violated during the processing of this Article 15 punishment, or...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-060

    Original file (2007-060.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleged that his removal from the list was unjust because a) Commander, CGPC based his negative recommendation on an assumption that the applicant would have failed of selection in 2004 had the selection board seen the SOER and the Punitive Letter of Admonition; b) the Secretary was not aware of the positive recommendation of the special board; c) the Secretary abused his discretion by removing him from the list, contrary to the special board’s recommendation, without written...