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

										CRS
										Docket No: 272-07
										07 May 2007

Dear

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 14 March 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.

The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 28 December 2000 after nearly 10 years of prior active service. You then continued to serve well for more than four years.

On 27 November 2005 you received nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence of 17 days. The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of one-half months pay per month for two months and reduction in rate from petty officer first class (IT1; E-6) to petty officer second class (1T2; E-5), which was suspended for six months. On 10 May 2006 the suspension was vacated due to further misconduct that included two instances of insubordination and failure to obey a lawful order.

On 24 May 2006 you attempted suicide. Also on that date, you received an adverse enlisted evaluation for the period 16 November 2005 to 23 May 2006. On 25 May 2006 you were transferred from Bahrain to Portsmouth Naval Medical Center via Amsterdam, where you escaped from your personal escort. After subsequently arriving at Portsmouth Medical Center, you will returned to Bahrain due to your refusal to go to scheduled appointments. On 15 July 2006 you received a second adverse enlisted evaluation for the period 25 May to 15 July 2006. You submitted a rebuttal to this evaluation.

On 24 July 2006 your commanding officer recommended to the Navy Personnel Command (NAVPERSCOM) that you not be reenlisted. On 25 July 2006 the NAVPERSCOM approved this recommendation. Subsequently, on 27 July 2006 you were honorably discharged by reason of non-retention on active duty. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your lengthy period of honorable service, the contention that your nonjudicial punishment was un]ust and was the cause of your not being reenlisted. The Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reason for discharge or the reenlistment code, given your disciplinary actions and two adverse enlisted evaluations. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the comments set forth in the commanding officer’s letter of 24 July 2006.

You also contend that your nonjudicial punishment was unjust. However, given the available evidence, the Board concluded that the commanding officer acted reasonably in concluding that you committed the offense and that nonjudicial punishment was appropriate. In this regard, the Board agreed with the comments in the acting commanding officer’s letter of 5 January 2006, a copy of which is attached. The Board also found no error or injustice in the vacation action.

The Board also substantially concurred with the comments contained in the two enlisted evaluations for the periods 16 November 2005 to 24 May 2006 and 25 May 2006 to 15 July 2006, and found no reason to remove them. Those evaluations contain such descriptive comments as inability to obey orders, disrespect of senior leadership, habitual incompetence, and avoidance of responsibility.

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

Enclosure