Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00272-07
Original file (00272-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                   2 NAVY ANNEX
 WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



                                                                                          CRS
                                                                                           Docket No: 272-07
                                                                                           07 May 2007





Dear
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 14 March 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 28 December 2000 after nearly 10 years of prior active service. You then continued to serve well for more than four years.
On 27 November 2005 you received nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence of 17 days. The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of one-half months pay per month for two months and reduction in rate from petty officer first class (IT1; E-6) to petty officer second class (1T2; E-5), which was suspended for six months. On 10 May 2006 the suspension was vacated due to further misconduct that included two instances of insubordination and failure to obey a lawful order.
On 24 May 2006 you attempted suicide. Also on that date, you received an adverse enlisted evaluation for the period 16 November 2005 to 23 May 2006. On 25 May 2006 you were transferred from Bahrain to Portsmouth Naval Medical Center via Amsterdam, where you escaped from your personal escort. After subsequently arriving at Portsmouth Medical Center, you w ill re t u rned to Bahrain due to your refusal to go to scheduled appointments. On 15 July 2006 you received a second adverse enlisted evaluation for the period 25 May to 15 July 2006. You submitted a rebuttal to this evaluation.
On 24 July 2006 your commanding officer recommended to the Navy Personnel Command (NAVPERSCOM) that you not be reenlisted. On 25 July 2006 the NAVPERSCOM approved this recommendation. Subsequently, on 27 July 2006 you were honorably discharged by reason of non-retention on active duty. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your lengthy period of honorable service, the contention that your nonjudicial punishment was un]ust and was the cause of your not being reenlisted. The Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reason for discharge or the reenlistment code, given your disciplinary actions and two adverse enlisted evaluations. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the comments set forth in the commanding officer’s letter of 24 July 2006.

You also contend that your nonjudicial punishment was unjust. 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. In this regard, the Board agreed with the comments in the acting commanding officer’s letter of 5 January 2006, a copy of which is attached. The Board also found no error or injustice in the vacation action.

The Board also substantially concurred with the comments contained in the two enlisted evaluations for the periods 16 November 2005 to 24 May 2006 and 25 May 2006 to 15 July 2006, and found no reason to remove them. Those evaluations contain such descriptive comments as inability to obey orders, disrespect of senior leadership, habitual incompetence, and avoidance of responsibility.

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


Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 07317-01

    Original file (07317-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ItGKBtt is assigned when Separation code discharged by reason of misconduct due an individual is to civil conviction.4 q- On 20 June 2001 Petitioner's counsel faxed a supplemental letter of deficiency to NAVPERSCOM responding, in part, as follows to the 4 May 2001 letter from COMPHIBGRU TWO: Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-710 if the (ADB) finds that the preponderance of the evidence does not support one or more of the reasons for separation alleged and recommends retention then the Separation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07450-06

    Original file (07450-06.rtf) 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.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 enlisted in the Navy on 3 June 1999 at age 18. You were honorably released from active duty, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09003-06

    Original file (09003-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Complainant alleges that:(1) On September 22, 2005, respondent improperly vacated suspension of complainant’s earlier nonjudicial punishment. He therefore denied complainant’s request for relief as to the vacation proceedings.SUBJECT: Complaint of Wrongs Under Article 138, UCMJ, ICO• With respect to complainant’s request for admiral’s mast, the GCMA determined that the request should not have been denied at the command level. The investigating office concluded that complainant had violated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05820-06

    Original file (05820-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I suspect this is what flagged him for the MOB.Putting aside for the moment why the gain was improperly conducted (investigating, member was not gained [to the] unit early Nov due to detailer [being] behind 1 month on his issuing orders, this was roughly the same time the MOB was being prepared), respectfully request guidance on whether this new information will result in a change to his mobilization status .At another point during processing of the case, you stated that reservists who are...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07478-01

    Original file (07478-01.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. Both the forfeitures and reduction were A 25 March 1992 Court However, the On the A page 9 entry shows that you were assigned adverse marks of 2.6 in military bearing and personal behavior for the reporting period 1 February to 16 October 1992, and you were not recommended for reenlistment. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02425-07

    Original file (02425-07.rtf) 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.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 3 June 2003 with about four years of active service on a prior...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04591-00

    Original file (04591-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The advisory opinion notes that the marks and comments in the performance evaluations were in accordance with Navy Personnel Command 2 regulations, and Petitioner has not submitted any evidence to show that the commanding officer abused his discretion. and the recommendation made by the commanding officer, the Board concludes that the NJP entry in the service record should be modified by deleting the charge under Article 133, UCMJ, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Therefore,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08743-00

    Original file (08743-00.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 June 2001. 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 believe there was disparate treatment because the chief petty officer only received a punitive letter of reprimand and was retained in the Navy,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11143-09

    Original file (11143-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code should not be changed, your pay grade of E-4 should not be reinstated, nor should your security clearance revocation documentation be removed because of your substandard performance and misconduct. The Board concluded that you were fortunate to receive a general characterization of service, because Sailors who are separated for misconduct normally receive an other than honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction...