Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03458-05
Original file (03458-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL FECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100       


                  CRS
                  Docket No: 3458-05
                  4 May 2006







 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 12 April 2006. 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 statute~, 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.

The Board found that you were commissioned as an officer in the Naval Reserve on 10 July 1992. The record reflects that in April 1993 you were the subject of an investigation concerning your relationship with a female fireman recruit (FR; E-l) which determined that the matter would be handled administratively. You were therefore issued a non-punitive letter of caution and ordered not to have any social contact with the FR. Nevertheless, on 18 June 1993 you traveled to Rochester, New York, to meet with her while she was on leave.

On 25 June 1993 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order, specifically, the order not to have contact with the FR. The report of the NJP was forwarded on 3 December 1993 to the Bureau of Naval Personnel. You were offered the opportunity to tender a resignation request in lieu of separation processing. On 11 March 1994 you submitted your resignation. On 3 June 1994 the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs approved your resignation and directed that you received a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. You were so discharged on 31 July 1994.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the contention that a superior officer encouraged the relationship with the FR and that your post service conduct has been excellent. However, the Board concludes that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change in the reason for discharge, given your refusal to obey the order of your command. In this regard, there is no evidence in the record nor have you presented any that a superior officer encouraged the relationship with the FR. Additionally, the Board could not help but note that you were essentially given a second chance when the decision was made not to take formal disciplinary action when your fraternization with the female FR was discovered. Unfortunately, you failed to take advantage of this opportunity to redeem yourself, and disobeyed the order to refrain from seeing her. 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















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501504

    Original file (ND0501504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge IV: Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification 1: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM, to wit: NONPUNITIVE LETTER OF CAUTION, dated December 02, 2002, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about Dec 03, 2002, fail to obey the same by wrongfully continuing a personal relationship with GM2 R_ D. M_. Specification 2: In that Lieutenant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05085-08

    Original file (05085-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS Docket No: 5085-08 28 October 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Sub}: FORMER Bigs REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. She replied that Petitioner had just asked her out, and told the lieutenant that he needed to “take care of” his junior officers. " f. On 15 February 2007 the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, advised...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700839

    Original file (ND0700839.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge The letter included the Applicant’s request for resignation and recommended approval of that request.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06711-08

    Original file (06711-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    [Petitioner] was involuntarily discharged from the Marine Corps with an honorable characterization of service and has been on continuous active duty since October 1994 until her separation. Accordingly, we recommend that [Petitioner's] request for separation [sic] be denied. Furthermore, the law and regulations allow commanders to recommend separation of commissioned officers without the recommendation of a BOI when they have less than five years of active duty service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04591-99

    Original file (04591-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When COL B asked GYSGT M for proof of his assertion that you were involved with his wife, GYSGT M said that LT M had admitted the affair to him and said that the relationship had begun when both of you attended school in Rhode Island. not to contest the findings at that On 19 January 1996 you and your military counsel signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which you agreed disposition of the allegation against me at punishment (NJP) and proceeding, or on appeal of that that it was "expressly...

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00238

    Original file (FD2005-00238.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    based upon thc record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's cl~aracterization for discharge inequitable. I was discharged by the Air Force for what they termed as "serious and recurring misconduct punishable by civilian or military authorities." As a prior enlisted member who became a commissioned officer, I am entitled to return to active duty as an enlisted member if I am discharged "Honorably" as an officer.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02500-98

    Original file (02500-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2500-98 14 April 1999 Dears This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United \ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. also married with two daughters, ages 18...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00206

    Original file (FD2006-00206.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FOR( F DISCHARGE REVIEII BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WlhC, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 I (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMHKK ~D-2006-00206 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for u p ~ a d e of his discharge to honorable. Based on a full review of all information in the file, the Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case. A statement that Capt [---------- and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 13164 11

    Original file (13164 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2012. On 18 April 2011, a report of the NUP was forwarded to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC). The results of the BOI were forwarded and you were informed that you would be retained in the Navy, but that the NUP would become part of your official record.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004096

    Original file (20090004096.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states the applicant was constructively discharged as a result of the actions of his supervisor (at Fort Lewis). Counsel states the applicant's counseling also targeted him for inadequate documentation using the new AHLTA. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) provides, in pertinent part, that under normal circumstances, any Regular Army officer or USAR officer who has completed their 8-year military service obligation may submit a request for unqualified...