DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 11317-06
19 July 2007
Dear Miia iit,
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 18 July 2007. 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.
The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 13 June 2005
after more than five years of prior active service. On 2
December 2005 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the
sexual harassment of, and communication of indecent language to,
a female under your supervision. The punishment imposed was a
forfeiture of one-half month’s pay per month for two months,
restriction and extra duty for 45 days, and reduction from petty
officer second class (BM2; E-5) to petty officer third class
(BM3; E-4).
The Board rejected your unsubstantiated contention that the NUP
of 2 December 2005 was based on unfair and false charges. The
Board presumed that your commanding officer acted reasonably in
concluding, based on the evidence before him, that you committed
the charged offenses. Clearly your commanding officer was in the
best position to resolve the factual issues and to impose
punishment.
You have not demonstrated that your warfare qualifications were
removed improperly. The restoration of those qualifications is
an administrative matter within the jurisdiction of your
commanding officer.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05232-06
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.The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 28 July 1999. The punishment imposed consisted of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00272-07
On 24 July 2006 your commanding officer recommended to the Navy Personnel Command (NAVPERSCOM) that you not be reenlisted. However, given the available evidence, the Board concluded that the commanding officer acted reasonably in concluding that you committed the offense and that nonjudicial punishment was appropriate. 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 | CY2008 | 00318-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2009. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06218-06
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulation 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 injusticeThe Board found that YOU reenlisted in the Navy on 15 November 2002 after more than three years of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04079-04
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). However,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08967-05
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 | CY2005 | 09213-05
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.The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 27 June 1984. Clearly your commanding officer was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00854-06
In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion dated 7 March 2006 from the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General, which addresses the issues of abandonment of rank and the validity of a charged offense. Specifically, reference (a) asks, “{d]id Ensign Eastburn’s use of obscenity during his phone conversation with Petitioner on 24 October 2003, constitute an abandonment of rank such that it Constituted a defense to the cha~ge of disrespect to an officer?” Additionally, reference (a)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02221-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, application on 28 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The execution of all punishment was On 16 December 1985 you were advanced to first class petty officer (E-6) and on 21 July 1986 you extended your enlistment for a period of 27 months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02401-06
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.Your DD Form 214 indicates that you enlisted in the Navy on 16 June 1987 and served continuously on...