DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                   BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TRG
Docket No: 2401-06
13 June 2007

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 12 June 2007. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

Your DD Form 214 indicates that you enlisted in the Navy on 16 June 1987 and served continuously on active duty until your discharge on 13 June 2005, a period of 17 years, 11 months and 29 days.

The available record shows that on 9 March 2005 you were issued a military protective order to stay away from XXXX V. (M). On 29 April 2005, you were arrested for violating that order. On 9 May 2005, you received nonjudicial punishment for wrongfully interacting with XXXX (M) and making a false official statement to the effect that you had no dealings with Ms. (M) for three months. The punishment imposed was a reduction in rate to petty officer second class (1C2; E-5).

In the performance evaluation for the period 16 November 2004 to 9 May 2005, you were assigned adverse marks of 1.0 in four categories and were not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy. The evaluation comments, state in part, as follows:

Total disregard for the Navy’s Core Values. His
actions continually counter good order and discipline and shows his extreme lack of self-control. In addition to his UCMJ violation, he has been formally counseled for indebtedness, irresponsibility, and substandard appearance. ... Displays no leadership potential and fosters a climate that is not conducive to an environment of team work. He willfully ignored the efforts of an entire division ... to mentor and correct his shortcomings. ...

In a related action, you were processed for an administrative discharge (ADB) by reason of misconduct. The ADB found that you had committed misconduct due to commission of a service offense but, in view of your lengthy service, recommended an honorable discharge. After review, an honorable discharge was directed and you were so discharged on 14 June 2005. At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

You contend in your application that you were improperly discharged because the command rushed the separation proceedings in order to discharge you before reaching 18 years of service, which would have ensured you the opportunity to reach 20 years of active service. In effect, you are requesting reinstatement in the Navy and transfer to the Fleet Reserve at the earliest possible date.

Although the ADB is not filed in the record, it is clear that you violated a military protective order. Such an order would not have been issued unless the command believed there was a valid reason for it. It is clear that the misconduct for which you received nonjudicial punishment constituted serious offenses. Further, the last performance evaluation clearly shows that you were offered assistance for your problems but did not comply with counseling. Finally, the Board is aware that even if you had reached 18 years of service, you could still have been administratively separated, but the separation authority would have been higher in the chain of command. The Board concluded that you were properly discharged by reason of misconduct on 14 June 2005.

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