DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20376-5100
TUR
Docket No: 7698-09
11 June 2010
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 9 June 2010. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
-to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice,
You were commissioned in the Navy in the rank of ensign (paygrade
O1-E) on 28 April 2006. On 15 November 2006 you signed a System
Authorization Access Request (SAAR) and as such acknowledged the
established guidelines regarding prohibited usage of government
computers. However, about seven months later, on 7 June 2007,
you were counselled regarding the violation of the SAAR by
accessing unauthorized and/or proxy websites. In this regard,
your computer system account was suspended for 90 days.
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. At this time your computer system account was
suspended indefinitely. ©
On 9 August 2007 you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for
failure to obey a Lawful order (as evidenced by violation of the
SABR by wrongfully accessing unauthorized websites and
downloading pornographic material to a government network). The
punishment imposed was a punitive letter of reprimand. On 20
August 2007 you submitted an appeal to the NJP and the punishment
imposed stating, in part, that you were not in violation of the
requirements of the SAAR. However, on 7 September 2007, your
commanding officer provided a written endorsement rebutting your
appeal and recommending that the NUP be upheld based on your
misconduct, specifically, violation of the SAAR. Shortly
thereafter, on 26 September 2007, your appeal was denied and the
NJP upheld because you were found guilty of violation of the
SAAR, had been previously counselled, had your computer account
privileges suspended for improperly accessing unauthorized
websites, and were clearly on notice of the charge for improperly
using a government computer.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation
by reason of misconduct. On 19 August 2008 the Navy Personnel
Command forwarded a recommendation for separation to the
Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) for
approval. It appears that you were recommended for separation
under honorable conditions. SECNAV approved this recommendation
and on 30 September 2008 you were issued a general discharge by
reason of misconduct.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to remove the NUP and material pertaining to it,
presumably upgrade your discharge, and stop recoupment of your
educational expenses. It also considered your assertion
regarding you nonviolation of the SAAR and failure to obey a
lawful general order or regulation. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief
because of the seriousness of your misconduct as an officer of
the Navy. Further, there is sufficient documented evidence in
the record that is contrary to your assertion. Finally, the
Board noted that Sailors separated by reason of misconduct
normally receive discharges under other than honorable
conditions, and as such, you were fortunate to receive a general
discharge. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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. DE
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02982-01
websites on your office computer. The Board You are advised that corrections to block 18 of your DD Form 214 are administrative in nature and do not require action by the Board. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03086
On 14 Jul 00, the applicant was notified by his Wing Commander that he was considering whether to recommend to the Numbered Air Force (NAF) Commander that he be punished under Article 15 for alleged misconduct in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, in that he did on divers occasions, between on or about 9 Nov 99 and on or about 25 Jan 00, fail to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 6, Air Force Instruction 33-129, Transmission of Information via the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003496
The applicant requests, in effect, that his General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period ending 30 June 2006, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that all related adverse information be removed from his Security Clearance File. In an undated letter, Mr. Richard M____ stated that he was asked to conduct a review of various documents in reference to an incident wherein the applicant was accused of viewing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006313
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A DA Form 4856 shows the applicant was counseled, on 27 March 2003, for leaving his place of duty without notifying his supervisor. On 24 June 2003, the applicant was separated with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03464
The AFOSI Media Analysis Report (Exhibit 4 of the AFOSI Report of Investigation (ROI)) was completed on 12 Aug 03, and summarized that the applicant’s computer had 16 pornographic pictures, 35 pornographic movie clips and 14 Power Point Presentation files containing pornographic pictures saved to different folders which were located on the hard drive. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPP notes AFLSA/JAJM determined there were no legal errors requiring corrective...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058440C070421
The opinion stated that on 17 December 1998, the applicant’s commander determined by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the applicant assaulted his spouse, and that he violated his commander’s order to have no contact with his spouse. The applicant received a second Article 15, UCMJ, based on allegations that he violated a lawful general regulation by reviewing and downloading pornographic materials on his government computer. The applicant appeared before an administrative separation...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101486
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021913
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states: a. He states: * prior to rendering a finding, he adjourned the hearing to consult with the Beckley Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) first sergeant and his Battalion S-1/Adjutant * he also consulted with the Manual for Courts-Martial for legal guidance * although there was evidence that the applicant did violate a valid order given by a superior commissioned officer,...
As a lieutenant colonel, he was subjected to an Officer Grade Determination (OGD) because of a letter of reprimand (LOR) and an Article 15. A complete copy of the DPPRRP evaluation, with attached Report of Investigation, is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the advisory opinion, the applicant stated that he accidentally viewed some nude photographs while trying to learn how to use the Internet. The evidence of record reflects that the Air Force...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010229
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant also states the Show Cause Board was flawed in several ways: (A) the board did not include a Medical Service Corps (MSC) officer as requested. On 27 November 2007, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for violation of a lawful general order, to wit: General Order Number 1B, (1) by wrongfully transferring pornographic or sexually explicit images of his private parts and female private parts through email...