DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SJN
Docket No: 08526-10
8 March 2011
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.
B three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March
2011. 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
22 May 1998. The Board found that you served for over seven years
without incident until 5 December 2005, when after being advised of
your right to refuse nonjudicial punishment (NJP), you accepted it for
disobedience of a lawful general regulation by wrongfully maintaining
a personal relationship that was unduly familiar between
staff/instructor and student personnel. You received a punitive
letter of reprimand. On 9 December 2005, you submitted a letter of
appeal to the Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA), who reviewed and
denied your appeal on 10 January 2006. In his letter, he stated, in
part, that the punishment awarded was not unjust nor disproportionate
to the offense and that a preponderance of the evidence supported the
finding of guilty.
On 17 January 2006, your commanding officer (CO) forwarded a report of
NUP, via your chain of command, to the Commander, Naval Personnel
Command (NMPC) stating that a detachment for cause or a requirement to
show cause for retention was not recommended in your case. On
28 February 2006, you endorsed the report of NUP requesting that you
not have to show cause for retention in the Navy. However, CNATRA did
not concur with the recommendation of your CO, and stated, in part,
that you committed a serious offense in a position of trust and
authority, and that you should be required to show cause for retention
in the naval service. On 15 May and again on 28 August 2006, NMPC
authority, and that you should be required to show cause for retention
in the naval service. On 15 May and again on 28 August 2006, NMPC
directed that you show cause for retention. Subsequently, on
13 October 2006, a Board of Inquiry (BOI) was held and found that you
had committed misconduct, and recommended that you receive a general
discharge. You resigned with a general characterization of service on
30 September 2007.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and
letter of declaration in support of your application. Nevertheless,
the Board concluded oa factors were not sufficient to warrant
yemoving your NJP or unitive letter of reprimand, recharacterizing
four discharge, changing your separation code or reason for your
oleate, or serene any documentation pertaining to your show cause
BOI. The Board found that your case was thoroughly investigated when
eit was directed that you show cause for retention by appearing before
The Board found that your misconduct was properly charged as a
violation of article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
Board further found that the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction
5370.2B, paragraph 5b was not unconstitutionally vague nor was ae
unconstitutionally applied to you. The Board was unable to find that
the sexual encounter with Ensign N----, on 25 June 2005, was non-
consensual. Finally, the Board was unable to find that the evidence
provide by Captain N---- was an error or injustice. 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11993 14
- A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2015. The BOI found by a vote of three to zero, that you had committed misconduct, and although -the reason was supported by evidence, found that there was not sufficient evidence to recommend your separation from the Navy. The .Board found that the CO’s decision to.impose NJP was based on facts and circumstances surrounding the incident, and that...
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 | CY2010 | 07374-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 May 2011. The rec ra reflects that on 17 May 2007 you were subsequently found guilty of only one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman for the period cited “between on or about November 2004 and on or about May 2005." The Board concluded that your commanding officer's decision to impose the foregoing NUP, and the punishment imposed,...
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 | CY2008 | 06711-08
[Petitioner] was involuntarily discharged from the Marine Corps with an honorable characterization of service and has been on continuous active duty since October 1994 until her separation. Accordingly, we recommend that [Petitioner's] request for separation [sic] be denied. Furthermore, the law and regulations allow commanders to recommend separation of commissioned officers without the recommendation of a BOI when they have less than five years of active duty service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04896-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 2003. At the time of his BOI, it was customary to only file BOI findings in an officer's record if the findings included a recommendation to discharge the officer. The BOI findings not being included in his official record did not make his record incorrect, nor did it disadvan.tage him during the selection boards.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10370-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2009. In August 2006, the Navy Personnel Command directed that you show cause before a board of inquiry (BOI) as to why you should be retained in the Naval service. Your resignation letter specifically noted that you understood that, if your resignation was accepted you “shall subsequently receive a certificate of general discharge” and that you “could be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02809-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2008. SECNAV, the discharge authority, approved the foregoing recommendations and directed discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 31 July 2006 you were so separated. The Board noted that the NUP, punitive letter of reprimand, and SECNAV directed actions for discharge by reason of misconduct, and the recouping of educational...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06480-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 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. It also considered your desire to have your record reflect that you were recommended for a commission in the Marine Corps Reserve.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04984-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. The Board was unable to find that the command's correspondence with MMPR-2 dated 4 December 2005, recommending a four-month delay of your promotion, was based on anything other than the NUP, noting that the appeal of your NUP was not denied until 1 December 2005. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...