Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05633-07
Original file (05633-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00


 TJR
 Docket No: 5633-07
9 April 2008








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 8 April 2008. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulatio n 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 enlisted in the Navy on 12 June 2006 at age 18. Shortly thereafter, on 18 July 2006, an incident report stated, in part, that you were a participant in sexual harassment and impeding an investigation. As a result, on 25 July 2006, you received nonjudic~a~ punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order as evidenced by engaging in inappropriate behavior/sexual harassment that was detrimental to the training environment, and obstructing justice as evidenced by impeding an investigation by influencing witnesses’ statements. The punishment imposed was extra duty and restriction for 45 days and a $1,178.10 forfeiture of pay.
On 28 July 2006 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. At that, time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and did not object to the separation. Your commanding officer stated, in part, that you were found guilty at NJP and awarded punishment in a fair and just manner, and that due to your actions separation was clearly warranted.
 Subsequently,on 1 August 2006, the discharge authority directed an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and on 4 August 2006 you were so separated from the Navy and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and desire to reenlist in the armed forces. ‘It also considered your assertion that the charges for which you received NJP were unjustified. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code because of the seriousness of your misconduct. Further, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is separated by reason of misconduct, not recommended for reenlistment or retention, and/or failure to complete recruit training. Finally, there is documented evidence in the record that is contrary to your assertion. 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

  • 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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Feb 05 13_50_44 CST 2001

    Original file (Document scanned on Mon Feb 05 13_50_44 CST 2001.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My defense counsel did not question During the (ADB) I was upset that the (ADB) any witness and myself doing (sic) the (ADB) about (0’s) behavior. Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) make this guarantee applicable to an ADB respondent by stating that such an individual is entitled to “qualified counsel,” and defining that term as “counsel qualified under Article 27(b) of the UCMJ.” Articles 3640200.7 and 3620200.lv of the United States v. Marshall, 45 Strickland, at 687. Article...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07210-10

    Original file (07210-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, initially considered and denied your application on 22 July 2008. After the statements had been gathered an informal disciplinary review board consisting of senior noncommissioned officers examined the statements and conducted individual interviews of the seven Sailors who had accused you of sexual misconduct. Your commanding officer also testified before the ADB.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08967-05

    Original file (08967-05.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2014 | NR12036 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR12036 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2015. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion that you were found guilty of only one theft. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR844 14

    Original file (NR844 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Subsequently, -after waiving your procedural rights in June 1991, your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due commission of a serious offense as evidenced by sexual misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00368-11

    Original file (00368-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801620

    Original file (ND0801620.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500630

    Original file (ND0500630.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Administrative Discharge Board found: “SVCM admits violation of Artical (sic) 92 member signed PG 13 indicated SVCM new (sic) command policy but commited (sic) actions anyway.” 030717: Commanding Officer, USS RAINER (AOE 7), recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by Commanding Officer’s Non-Judicial punishment held on 13 April 2003 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07072-07

    Original file (07072-07.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 11 July 1990 at age 19 and served without disciplinary incident until 16...