Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 13164 11
Original file (13164 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

REC
Docket No: 13164-11
2 March 2012

 

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 15 February 2012. 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 on 29 May 1991. You then
served well and without disciplinary incident for more than 20
years. During this period, you were promoted to commander, pay
grade 0-5.

Apparently, you were verbally counseled by your Commanding
Officer (CO) on three occasions concerning allegations of
harassment, and being overly friendly with female civilian
employees. On 17 February 2011, during the Pacific Fleet
Inspector General (IG) visit, two anonymous Navy Hotline
complaints were filed concerning alleged sexual harassment
creating a hostile work environment against you. On 18 February
2011, a formal investigation was initiated to determine if a
hostile work environment was created or if you had engaged in
preferential treatment, and if any sexual harassment was caused
by your actions. The results of the investigation were provided
to your CO, and he determined there was sufficient evidence to
conduct nonjudicial punishment (NJP). On 1 April 2011, you
accepted NUP, and did not demand trial by court-martial. You
were charged with violation of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) Article 92: failure to obey four lawful orders to
limit your interactions with female employees, wrongfully
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work
environment, wrongfully traveling to Bali, Indonesia, without
authorization, and willfully failing to perform the basic duties
and functions of an Executive Officer; Article 133: engaging in
inappropriate relationships with female members of the staff, by
using your command position to enhance or encourage personal
relationships, and significantly departing from acceptable
standards of conduct; and Article 134: adultery. You were
found guilty of all charges except for adultery, and awarded a
punitive letter of reprimand. On 1 April 2011, you were
informed of your rights to appeal the NUP, which you elected to
do. However, you failed to submit your appeal in a timely
manner.

On 18 April 2011, a report of the NUP was forwarded to the

Commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC). On 10 June 2011, NPC
directed you to show cause for retention. On 19 October 2011,
your case was presented to a Board of Inquiry (BOI). The BOI

found by a vote of three to zero that you had not committed
misconduct and recommended that you be retained in the Navy.

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.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, especially the BOI’s finding
of no misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to remove the NJP, adverse fitness
report, detachment for cause, punitive letter of reprimand from
your official record, nor grant you consideration by a special
selection board. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind
that the NJP and BOI were two separate proceedings, and the
decision of the latter does not invalidate the finding of the
former. This is especially true in your case because the
commanding officer’s decision to impose NUP was based on a
thorough fact finding investigation. Moreover, you presented no
evidence at the BOI that was not carefully reviewed by your
commanding officer when he imposed 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,

San

W. DEAN PF
Executive or

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11993 14

    Original file (NR11993 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    - 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05859

    Original file (BC 2013 05859 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The reasons for the referral OPR were wrongful sexual contact with one female employee and sexual harassment of multiple female employees for which he received a LOR, UIF and CR action. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR, UIF and CR as served to the applicant, DPSID concludes that its mention on the contested report was proper and IAW all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026693

    Original file (20100026693.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests transfer of his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 21 May 2006 through 31 October 2006 to the restricted portion of his official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant provides a memorandum for record from the investigating officer; the OER in question; a memorandum, subject: Notification of Potential Adverse Administrative Action; extracts...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021631

    Original file (20130021631.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018857

    Original file (20140018857.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant received one verbal statement that having a female MEPS applicant in his office gave the appearance of unprofessional conduct and had received no prior counseling. The evidence of record confirms the applicant received an MOR in January 2010 for attempting to recruit a female Air Force MEPS applicant into the Army, inappropriately contacting another female MEPS applicant on a personal Facebook account, and having female MEPS applicants in his office. In this case, the...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-086

    Original file (2004-086.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Administrative Investigation On April 2, 2003, the CO of the Xxxxx ordered a lieutenant to conduct an informal investigation of “all the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged sexual harassment by [the applicant] while discharging his duties as the Xxxxx Xxxx Manager.” The CO noted that no hearing was required but that a report with findings should be prepared. The report indicates that Ms. D had been upset by the work schedule made by the applicant for the months of March...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00992-01

    Original file (00992-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You retired on 1 April 1993. During this period, you You were You pointed out in your rebuttal On 12 May 1994, the Secretary of the Navy issued you a WSecretarial Letter of Censure" for sexual harassment of a female lieutenant, and for creating a hostile work environment after she made allegations against you. It is clear that the Secretary of the Navy has the authority to issue a Letter of Censure in cases such as yours.

  • CG | BCMR | Discrimination and Retaliation | 2001-133

    Original file (2001-133.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When questioned about your personal relationship with the petty officer, you initially deceived the command by denying the relationship, when you were actually involved in a prohibited romantic relationship with that service member. The XO stated that such counseling was done completely outside the chain of command and no one in PO-2's chain of command was aware that the applicant was providing counseling to this enlisted member. With respect to the disputed semi-annual OER, the Coast...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02532

    Original file (BC-2002-02532.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The rater submitted a letter of support stating "Had I known that a privileging hearing would exonerate [the applicant] of these professional charges I would not have signed off on the OPR." The sexual harassment allegations were fabricated and Major --- and Lt Col --- escalated the allegations to eliminate the applicant. Lt Col --- presented the rater with the Report of Inquiry in which the JAG wrote and determined sexual harassment occurred.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014774

    Original file (20130014774.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) from the restricted folder of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). d. Allegation Number 2: The applicant inappropriately showed the claimant a picture of a recruiting applicant's tattoo as described above. His NJP proceedings were conducted in accordance with State law and regulation and the Article 15 is properly filed in the restricted folder of...