DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 2809-07
25 February 2008
your application for correction of your
the provisions of Title 10, United
This is in reference to
naval record pursuant to
States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 5 February 2008. 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.
the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 19 July 2000 at age 19 and
served without disciplinary incident. You were commissioned in
the Navy on 27 May 2005 and continued to serve without incident
until 23 September 2005, when you placed a telephone call toa
fellow officer and left an inappropriate message. However, on 2
October 2005, you submitted a written apology to this officer
stating, in part, that the call was unprofessional and crude, and
that you were under the influence of al
call. You further stated that you would not initiate personal
communication with this officer or consume alcohol for the next
five years.
On 7 October 2005 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
using insulting and defamatory language on a cell-phone and drunk
and disorderly conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the
armed forces. The punishment imposed was a punitive letter of
reprimand for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. At
that time you were also attrited from a flight training program.
Subsequently, your commanding officer strongly recommended that
you submit written documentation to show cause for retention. As
a result, on 25 October 2005, you submitted an appeal to the NJP
and the punishment imposed on the grounds that attrition from a
flight training program was disproportionate to the offense.
However, your appeal was subsequently denied.
On 30 March 2006 the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) notified you
of pending administration separation action by reason of
misconduct. On 14 April 2006 you acknowledged and responded to
the foregoing action. Subsequently, CNP recommended to the
Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that you be separated under
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. The CNP further
recommended authorization to recoup the cost of your Naval
Academy education. SECNAV, the discharge authority, approved the
foregoing recommendations and directed discharge under honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 31 July 2006 you were
so separated. At that time you were directed by SECNAV to repay
the cost of your educational tuition assistance.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your period of honorable service, letters of recommendation,
appeal documents, and various explanations regarding alleged
injustices. It also considered your requests to expunge your
record of the NUP and the punitive letter of reprimand, upgrade
the characterization of your discharge, change your narrative
reason for separation, and revoke the recoupment of your
educational costs. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant favorable action to your
multiple requests. The Board noted that the NUP, punitive letter
of reprimand, and SECNAV directed actions for discharge by reason
of misconduct, and the recouping of educational tuition
assistance were not only authorized, but appropriate in your
case. Finally, a Sailor, whether enlisted or an officer, who is
separated by reason of misconduct would normally receive an other
than honorable discharge, and as such, the Board concluded you
were fortunate to receive a discharge under honorable conditions.
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 PFEIRRE
\
Executive Di r
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07698-09
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. Nevertheless, it appears that on 23 July 2007, you were granted access to your computer account and again violated the SAAR by accessing an unauthorized website and downloading pornographic Materials. Shortly thereafter, on 26 September 2007, your appeal was denied and the NJP upheld...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700315
PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Decisional Issues Equity: Characterization not warranted by overall service record. While based on the same factual event, the decision that the Applicant’s misconduct warranted nonjudicial punishment and that his misconduct warranted administrative separation were separate decisions made by separate authorities. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil ” .The names and votes of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02442-99
authorized in cases involving homosexual conduct when the Like other separation cases, recoupment is member has failed to complete his service either voluntarily or because of misconduct. the case. It is also clear to the Board that the charges against Petitioner were based mainly on alleged homosexual conduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01155-02
In response to the draft action, on 11 March 1998 you submitted the following statement: I am aware of the consequences of this conviction in both the Naval Service and the Civil System and I accept full responsibility for my actions. On 14 December 1998 the Commander, Training Wing FIVE submitted a final Civil Action Report to Navy Personnel Command that stated, in part, as follows: This is not (LTJG M's; alcohol related incident February 1998 for a DUI offense on 22 July 1997 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3737 13
You requested removal of a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) held on 28 May 2008, retirement in the rank of commander (pay grade 0o- '5), and removal of two fitness reports for 5 October 2006 to 18 April 2007, and for 17 August 2007 to 8 January 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 July 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03784-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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. The Board also found that no error or injustice occurred in your administrative separation as a probationary officer and recoupment of your NROTC...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07595-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2011. 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. Presumably, your statements were taken into consideration at all levels of review, but on 9 October 2009, NPC recommended that you be honorably...
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00529
ND01-00529 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant recommended for administrative separation from active naval service with a general discharge. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).A characterization of service of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01199-07
This advisory opinion recommended reconsideration of the applicants’ records, on the basis of the understanding that SECNAV had removed them from their AFQOL’s without knowledge that two of the other officers involved in the same matter had been promoted, and in the belief that only one of the three applicants’ NJP’s had been set aside. j- In enclosure (5), counsel further advised that each of the three applicants had received a letter dated 24 April 2007 from NPC informing them that their...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08526-10
B three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March 2011. On 28 February 2006, you endorsed the report of NUP requesting that you not have to show cause for retention in the Navy. 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.