DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 5850-09
21 October 2010
Hy er og
TAK a. f
RQ ee y
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 22 September 2010. 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
snsufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you initially enlisted in the Navy on 10
April 1990 and served on active duty until 17 February 1994. You
reenlisted on 4 March 1995, with 3 years, 10 months and 8 days of
prior active duty service. You received nonjudicial punishment
(NTP) on 14 October 2007 for failing to obey lawful orders by
violating prohibitions on sexual harassment and wrongful
fraternization. The punishment imposed consisted of forfeiture of
$1748.00 per month for two months and a punitive letter of
reprimand. On 3 February 2008 you were discharged under
honorable conditions by reason of completion of required service,
having completed 16 years, 8 months and 27 days of active duty
service. You were assigned a reentry code of RE-4, to indicate
that you were not recommended for reenlistment. The DD Form 214
you were issued at separation shows erroneously that you had
completed more than twenty years of active service.
The Board did not accept your contentions to the effect that the
NIP was too severe and unwarranted; that you did not commit the
charged offenses; that the conduct for which you received NUP did
not rise to the level of violations of Uniform Code of Military
Justice; and that the NUP was the result of witness tampering.
The Board concluded that your commanding officer acted reasonably
in your case, and that he was in the best position to resolve the
factual issues and to impose appropriate punishment. It could
not find any credible evidence that you did not commit the
offense in question. In addition, the Board noted that you
received a substantial benefit by accepting the NUP, as you
avoided the possibility of being sentenced to confinement at hard
labor and punitive*separation from the Navy.
The Board carefully considered your otherwise outstanding record
of service, but found it insufficient to warrant granting relief
in your case, given the nature of your misconduct. Accordingly,
‘yqur application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The Board did not consider the issue of the appropriateness of
the characterization of service as under honorable conditions,
vice honorable, since you have not exhausted an available
administrative remedy by applying to the Naval Discharge Review
Board (NDRB). You may do so by submitting the attached DD Form
293.
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,
Run
W. DEAN PFEYF
Executive estor
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04246-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. The foregoing civil case, specifically, the administrative action to suspend or revoke your driving privileges for driving under the influence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03653-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 2009. Concerning your request for removal of the two above fitness reports, the Board found that you did not make any contentions of error or injustice in connection with either report and no material errors are apparent in either. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 13164 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2012. On 18 April 2011, a report of the NUP was forwarded to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC). The results of the BOI were forwarded and you were informed that you would be retained in the Navy, but that the NUP would become part of your official record.
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 | BCNR | CY2011 | 08179-11
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. On two occasions, 19 September 1996, and 19 November 2007, you signed and acknowledged the Navy’s policy concerning sexual harassment. commanding officer submitted a request for detachment for cause by reason of sexual harassment, which you were allotted sufficient time to respond.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01408-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 November 2010. 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 | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0424 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 March 2014. You also received an adverse performance evaluation for 16 September 2010 to 6 February 2011. 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 | CY2011 | 01519-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March 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. Finally, the Board concluded that there was no evidence in the record to support removal of the NUP.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4292 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2014. The Board found that your commanding officer's decision to impose the foregoing NJP, and the punishment imposed, was appropriate, and that it was administratively and procedurally correct. 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...
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.