DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON Dc 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 08178-11
10 August 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 10 August 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 entered active duty in the Navy on 1 September 1992. On two
occasions, 19 September 1996, and 19 November 2007, you signed
and acknowledged the Navy’s policy concerning sexual harassment.
On 22 duly 2010, your commanding officer initiated a preliminary
investigation of you regarding allegations of sexual assauit and
sexual harassment. On 9 August 2010, the investigating officer
provided your commanding officer with her findings, which
included statements from your fellow Sailors. On 10 August 2010,
you signed the acknowledgment and waiver of rights concerning the
alleged indecent conduct charges. On 11 August 2010, your
commanding officer approved all findings. On 20 August 2010, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for failure to obey an
order/regulation (wrongfully committing sexual harassment). You
received a punitive letter of reprimand. On 24 August 2010, you
provided your chain of command an appeal request. Your appeal
was ultimately disapproved. On 29 September 2010, your.
commanding officer submitted a request for detachment for cause
by reason of sexual harassment, which you were allotted
sufficient time to respond. However, you refused to submit a
statement. On 4 November 2010, your commanding officer forwarded
his request to the Bureau of Naval Personnel. On 21 March 2011,
the detachment for cause was approved.
In its review of your application, the Board considered ail
mitigating factors, such as your overall record of service.
However, the Board found these factors were insufficient to
warrant removing your NUP and derogatory material. The Board
concluded that your commanding officer’s decision to impose this
NUP was appropriate and that it was administratively and
procedurally correct as written and filed. The Board further
concluded that removal of the NUP or modification of the charge
was not warranted. The Board thus concluded that there was no
error or injustice in your NUP. 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 E
Executive r
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 | CY2005 | 08967-05
In his endorsement on your appeal CSG2 analyzed the evidence concerning the charge of indecent assault and stated that he believed a preponderance of the evidence supported his finding of guilty. He conceded that the evaluation at issue was erroneously prepared and indicated that action would be taken to file a corrected evaluation but strongly recommended that your application for advancement to chief petty officer be denied. The opinion concluded by stating that given the no misconduct...
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 | CY2010 | 07210-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, initially considered and denied your application on 22 July 2008. After the statements had been gathered an informal disciplinary review board consisting of senior noncommissioned officers examined the statements and conducted individual interviews of the seven Sailors who had accused you of sexual misconduct. Your commanding officer also testified before the ADB.
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071622C070402
He explained that the accuser had made the allegations after her rater (CW2) had counseled her on her conduct towards himself. On 1 December 2000, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation recommending that the applicant appear before a Show Cause Board based on his conduct as an officer and the substantiated investigation. Other witnesses refuted her version of the discussion concerning the applicant’s offer to strip down to a thong and perform lap dances for $20.00 and one...
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 | CY2012 | 10422 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2012. On 11 February 2011, you did file an appeal and on 18 February 2011, your appeal was denied. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021631
The applicant requests her DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rated period 19 December 2010 through 16 June 2011 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) be removed from her records. The applicant states the contested OER was an act of reprisal as a result of a Sexual Harassment and Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint she filed against her senior rater and brigade commander. The applicant provides: * an extract from Army Regulation 600-20 * Memorandum, Time Line...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4797 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2012 and the extension letter dated 28 June 2012, extending the period of this report to 28 June 2012 (copies at Tab A). Petitioner requests that the contested fitness report and extension letter be removed to comply with the Commander,...