DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 10703-09
3 September 2010
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 4 August 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
itjustice.
The Board found that you were promoted to Commander (pay grade
0-5) in October 2000 and recalled to active duty in February
2001. You were notified of pending administrative action to
detach you for cause, and remove you from active duty. It was
alleged that you were unable to take orders and complete minor
tasks. It was also alleged that you violated classified material
storage procedures, interfered in classified projects which you
were not assigned, and disclosed classified material. Also
allegedly your personal tax liens and credit obligations amounted
to tens of thousands of dollars. You elected to have your case
considered by a board of inquiry (BOI). Based on the information
currently contained in your record it appears that the BOI met
and found by vote of 3 to 0, that you had committed professional
dereliction and substandard performance of duty and recommended
that you be separated. On 26 July 2006, the Deputy Chief of
Naval Operations concurred with the BOI’s recommendations that
you be separated from the naval service with an honorable
discharge, with a separation code GNC (unacceptable conduct). At
age 60, you are to be placed in the Retired Reserve with pay, as
a former member in the paygrade of 0-4 (lieutenant commander) .
On 27 March 2007, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, by
authority of the Secretary of the Navy acting for the President,
discharged you from the Navy effective 1 September 2006 with an
honorable discharge and a separation code of GNC
(unacceptable conduct).
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors such as your 25 years of
service and overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant showing
that you were not reduced in grade for retirement purposes,
setting aside your discharge or removing the BOI’s findings from
your records due to your substandard performance. 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 PF
Executive Diregtor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09343-08
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, and notwithstanding the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The BOI recommended that you be separated with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions. As indicated above, you were notified by the Show Cause Authority -on 18 February 2005 that the BOI was not limited...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03434-99
With regard to your contention that the BOI was improperly constitute~ because no member was a chief warrant officer in your competitive category of Personnel (MOS 170), the Board noted that subparagraph 2d(1) of SECNAVINST 1920.6k stated that in the cases of regular officers other than limited duty officers and warrant officers, the BOI members must be serving in paygrade 0—6. in your competitive category might have had some insight into the merits of these allegations not shared by the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03434-99
must be at least t3 Regular officers in the grade of O-6 (colonel) as members WOs, the members need not be Paragraph 2d(3) then specifies that at least one member of %nrestricted line officer and that the (BOI) shall be an "one member shall be in the same competitive category as the respondent competitive category does not contain officers in the paygrade of O-6 or above, an O-6 from a closely related designator shall be used . this statute had been repealed by the t#me of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05978-03
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 19 August 2003, a copy of which is attached. The BOI also substantiated misconduct or moral or professional dereliction as evidenced by the commission of military or civilian offenses, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by six months or more, or would require proof of specific intent for conviction. The BOI recommended Petitioner's retention.
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001092
The Applicant was advised - in writing - that he was being considered for separation from the naval service based on allegations of:a) Misconduct - commission of a military offense or civilian office, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by confinement of six months or more; specifically,- Violation of Article 111 (Drunken operation of a motor vehicle, 2 separate specifications) - Violation of Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer) b) Substandard performance of duties,...
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 | CY2001 | 05816-01
Board has directed that your Naval record will be removing therefrom the following fitness report: Having reviewed all the facts of the Performance 1610.11C, Evaluabion injubtice in re/cord, the correkted by Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 12 May 97 960406 to 9701516 (EN) The memorandum will contain There will be inserted in your Naval record a memorandum in place of the removed report. also claims he was denied effective counsel failed to object at specific points during...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07500-09
_A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 2010. The Board also noted that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge, because normally when an individual is separated for misconduct, he is given an other than honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301696
The NDRB is charged with reviewing the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge and is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. ” 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06710-08
On 18 May 2005, Petitioner's civilian defense counsel submitted a rebuttal and letter of deficiency to the Commandant of the Naval District Washington, which states in part, as follows: a memorandum for the Record prepared by [BOI member], clearly demonstrates, the members of [Petitioner's] BOI did not properly understand that they had the option of recommending that [Petitioner] be retained in the naval service despite their findings that he had been guilty of certain misconduct and...