DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S$, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
SIN
Docket No: 11993-14
13 March 2015
Dear Gia Cena
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 3 March 2015. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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. The Board also
considered your counsel’s addendum dated 7 September 2011 with
enclosure
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.
The Board found that, as a result of an Inspector General (IG)
investigation, that you were involved with two substantiated
allegations of creating a hostile work environment. On
16 January 2014, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
creating a hostile working environment predicate on fear and
abusive comments that was prejudice to good order and discipline.
You received a letter of reprimand. On 24 January 2014, you
submitted an appeal of your NUP, via your commanding officer
(CO), that was denied on 24 March 2014. on 4 April 2014, a
report of the NUP was forwarded to Commander, Navy Personnel
Command (NPC) with a recommendation that you be detached for
cause, and show cause for retention in the Navy. On 23 October
2014, NPC determined that there was sufficient evidence of record
to require you to show cause for retention. Subsequently,
administrative separation action was initiated, and your case was
presented to a Board of Inquiry (BOI). 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.
As a result of the BOI’s decision you were retained in the Navy
and informed that your case would be filed in your official
records.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, especially
your contention that you did not commit misconduct, the BOI’s
findings and recommendation, and character letters.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to remove or set aside the NUP from your official
records, given the IG investigation, and the reasons set forth in
your CO’s endorsement of 13 February 2014 on your appeal. The
.Board found that the CO’s decision to.impose NJP was based on
facts and circumstances surrounding the incident, and that his
decision to impose NJP was appropriate, and it was
administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed.
The Board further concluded that the removal of your NJP is not
warranted, and that such action would be unfair to your peers,
against whom you will compete for promotions and assignments.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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 within one year from the date of the Board’s decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its decision in your case. 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,
ROBERT *J. EILL
Executive Director
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 | 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR10738 12
of reference (a), Petitioner, a former officer of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all derogatory material referencing the imposition of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 3 December 2009, for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, issuance of a Punitive Letter of Reprimand dated 10 December 2009, the proceedings of a Board of Inquiry (BOI) dated 16 November 2010, and administrative separation documentation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR767 15
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2015. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of material error...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11597 14
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 3 March 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5694 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 2014. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6368 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an officer in the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all derogatory material referencing the imposition of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 19 October 2011, for making a false official statement, a Punitive Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 23 October 2011, fitness reports (FITREP) for the periods of 11 March 2011 to 31 January 2012 and 1 February 2012 to 11 May...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR827 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 2015. The Board, in its review of your record and application with its supporting documentation, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, guch as your allegations that your discharge was improperly effectuated, a BOL recommendation was not given due consideration, and an injustice occurred when you were refused orders that would allow you to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150010229
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests that the Board recognize that the Board of Inquiry (BOI) was a more superior fact finding vehicle than the Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation and the resulting referred OER and General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and grant his request for the removal of the OER covering the period 3 May 2012 to 11 July 2012 from the applicants Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). After reviewing all of the evidence and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00648-01
LTCOL E submitted a report of his investigation on 30 May 1986 and concluded that although MAJ S was disliked by many members of LTCOL E further found that HMM-364, he was a competent officer. On 17 December 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action was initiated against you for the following specifications of LTCOLs E and R, no disciplinary Documentation in the record indicates that on 1 He recommended charges be disrespect to a superior officer 3 disrespect, disobedience and dereliction...