DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .
CRS
Docket. No: 318-08
6 July 2009
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 1 July 2009. 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 were commissioned as an ensign in the
Navy on 19 June 1993. On 9 August 2007 you were relieved for
cause as executive officer of your ship because of allegations
concerning your conduct on 20 July 2007. On 16 August 2007 you
received nonjudicial punishment for conduct unbecoming an officer
by grabbing the buttocks of a third class petty officer and
making lewd comments to a second class petty officer on 20 July
2007. The punishment consisted of a punitive letter of reprimand.
The Board concluded that you failed to demonstrate that the
nonjudicial punishment you received on 16 August 2007 is unjust
or disproportionate to your offenses, or that your detachment for
cause waS not warranted. The Board concluded that the Commander,
Carrier Strike Group FIVE acted reasonably in your case, and that
he was in the best position to resolve the factual issues and to
impose appropriate punishment. The Board was not persuaded that
you were the target/victim of a conspiracy, or that you did not
commit the charged offenses. Accordingly, your application has
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.
Concerning your request for removal of your fitness report, the
Board believes that this is a separate issue which should be
reviewed by the Board’s performance section. Accordingly, your
case will be assigned a new docket number to allow appropriate
tracking and review of that portion of your application.
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 | 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 | CY2007 | 11135-07
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 continued to be a member of the Navy Reserve and earned qualifying years in support of the Sea Cadet program. 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 | 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 | 11317-06
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. The restoration of those qualifications is an administrative matter within the jurisdiction of your commanding officer. 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 05214-08
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 carefully considered your contention to the effect that your reentry code should be corrected hacause the offense of the willful disobedience of the lawful order of a first class petty officer was erroneously listed in the recommendation for discharge as a violation of Article 128,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00575-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 1999. 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...
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 | CY2003 | 06784-03
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 for four years on 16 July 1994 as a petty officer fir. However, on 28...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09858-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on.21 June 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reentry code given your SCM conviction of serious...