DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SION
Docket No: 06403-11
28 September 2011
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: — - NAVAL RECORD OF
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments
(2) Case Summary
(3) Subject's naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an
active duty enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with
this Board requesting that the nonjudicial punishment (NUP) he
received on 17 May 2007 be removed from his Official Military
Personnel File (OMPF).
2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Boyd, Mr. Whalen, and Mr.
FExnicios, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 27 September 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed ail the facts of record pertaining
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice finds as
follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. On 17 May 2007, Petitioner received NUP for unauthorized
absence and drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle. He
received 60 days restriction, a suspended forfeiture of pay, and
a suspended reduction in paygrade. In his application, he states
that during his NUP, it was explained to him that if he were
found not guilty of his civilian charge for driving under the
influence (DUI) of alcohol, the NUP would be removed from his
record. On 12 June 2007, the civilian court found him not guilty
of DUI. Subsequently, he submitted a special request chit to have
his NIP removed from his record. The request was routed through
his chain of command and approved by the commanding officer.
However, the NJP was never removed from his OMPF. In his
application, he submits a letter from LNC(SW/AW) C---, who was
the command legal chief at the time of the NUP onboard the USS
WASP (LHD 1), dated 21 June 2011, stating, in part, that
Petitioner had requested to have his NJP removed from his record,
and it had been approved up the chain of command, which included
his own signature. Further, that due to the Chief’s dereliction
and the USS WASP personnel office, the NUP had not been removed
from his record. Additionally, that the request chit submitted
with Petitioner’s application is authentic. He also submitted
another statement from his leading Chief, MMCM S~--- at the time
of his NJP who also stated, in part, that his request to have his
NJP removed was approved by the chain of command.
c. The Board noted that an enlisted performance evaluation
covering the period from 16 March 2007 to 15 March 2008 with an
overall trait average of 4.29, does not mention anything about
his NUP of 17 May 2007. He was awarded his third Navy and Marine
Corps Achievement Medal for professional achievement in the
superior performance of his duties from January to July 2007,
which also covered the period of his NUP. Finally, he was
advanced to first class petty officer on 16 August 2010.
CONCLUSTON:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the supporting letters from Petitioner’s
former legal chief and leading chief, his evaluation and award
which covered the period he received the NUP, and the fact that
he was found “not guilty” of DUI, the Board concludes that his
request warrants favorable action in the form of relief.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s NJP of 17 May 2007
should be removed from his OMPF.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's Administrative Remarks (NAVPERS
1070/613) documenting his NJP of 17 May 2007 be removed from his
OMPF, along with all associated documentation relating to it.
b. That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such
entries or material be added to the record in the future.
c. That any material direct to be removed from Petitioner's
naval record be returned to this Board, together with a copy of
this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file
maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a
part of Petitioner’s naval record.
4, Pursuant to Section 6{c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c) it is certified that a quorum was
present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the
foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s
preceedings in the above entitled matter.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN BRIAN Savon ly Jeep
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority of reference (a}, has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
\ dan
W. DEAN P R
Executive r or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07838-10
JAMS stated that the NUP “stemmed from [Petitioner’s] failure to report a civilian DUI arrest,” however, the UPB entry actually says he was punished “for failing to notify his command of his DUI conviction [emphasis added] .” JAM5 noted that “the requirement to report the conviction (rather than the arrest) is lawful.” d. Enclosure (4) explains that PERB directed removing the contested fitness report in light of enclosure (3). e. In enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11205-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS . c. Petitioner received NUP on 28 December 2007 for improper use of a government vehicle and was awarded a letter of reprimand. Further, that he was the command sergeant major at the time Petitioner received NJP on 28 December 2007 and the only document he provided was the counseling form page 11.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8365 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all derogatory material regarding. e. An AO received from the HQOMC Military Justice Branch, Judge Advocate Division (JAM), enclosure (5), regarding Petitioner’s request to remove the NJP, page 11, and all related references thereto, recommended relief be granted because he self-reported that he...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11288-10
The Board, consisting of Mr. Blanchard, Ms. McCormick, and Mr. J. Hicks, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 2 August 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. On 16 May 2008, Petitioner received NJP for failure to obey a lawful order. It stated, in part, that while he no longer has Petitioner's records, he most certainly “set aside” the NUP he received on 16 May 2008.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00078-12
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing all references to the nonjudicial punishment (NUP) imposed on 12 June 2009. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Exnicios, Pfeiffer, and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 19 January 2012 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1978-13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 5S. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting an upgrade-oef his other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service and removal of his 1 August 1980 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The Board, consisting of Mr. Clemmons, Mr. Dixit, and Ms. Tollefson, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7775 13
He was then selected by the FY 2012 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board, convened on 17 April 2012, and he was promoted to gunnery sergeant with a date of rank and effective date of 1 December 2012. d. Enclosure (4) shows that the in zone percentage selected for the FY 2006 Staff Sergeant Selection Board was 62.2. e. Enclosure (5) reflects that the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board directed removing Petitioner's fitness report for 1 April to 2 November 2006, which documented the later...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1145 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all derogatory material regarding the nonjudicial punishment (NUP) imposed on 31 July 2007 and the fitness report (FITREP) for the period from 16 December 2006 to 31 July 2007, which references the NUP, from both his official military personnel file (OMPF) and the Marine Corps Total Force System...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 08352 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 §. On 1 August 2012, the commanding officer denied Petitioner’s request to set aside the NUP, stating in part that, his decision to award it for the incident was based on his admitted arrest and the voluntary statement given to the command after he waived his right to remain silent. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed, or completely expunged from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05064-09
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 September 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. However, because the command failed to submit a message withdrawing his recommendation to NPC and NETPDTC, prior to his advancement date, the Petitioner started to receive E-5 pay effective 16 August 2008,...