r
DE PA RTM ENT OF TH E NA V Y
BOA R D FOR COR R ECTION OF NA VAL R ECORDS 70 1 S. COUR THOUSE ROAD, SUITE 100 1
AR LINGTON, V A  22204·2490

SJN
Docket I\o: 2921- J 5
JUN 2 8 2016

Dcn r Pett) Oniccr

This i s i n rcferncc to your appl ication for correc1ion of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of ti tle I0 of the Uni ted Stales Code, section 1552

t\ thrcc-mcm be1 panel of the Board for Correction of Na\'al Records, sitting i n executive session, considered )Oll r application on 2 February 2016. The mum:s and 'oles of the members of the panel \\ ill be furnished upon request. Your allegations of c1Tor and i1tjusticc were reviewed in accordance "ith adm inistrative regulations and procedures applicable to the procet'.dings of this 11oard Documcntar) material considered by the Board consisted or your appl ication. together
wit h all material submillcd in suppon thereof, your na,·al record, nnd applicable statutes,
regulat ions, and pol icies. ln addition, the Board considcn:cl the aclvisrn) opinion furnished by Navy Personnel Command (PERS-3C).dated 20 J u ly 201 5, H copy or which \Vas previously
provided lo you, and response to the advisory opin ion through your counsel dated 14 September 2015.

/\f t cr careru l aml conscientious consideration of the en t i re rccorcl , !he Hoard found the evidence submi tted was i 11su rri cient to establish the existence of probnblc material error or injustice. In thi s regard, the 13onrd substantially concurred with the corrnnents contained in the adviso1y opinion.
Specifically, you acknowledged that you knowingly failed to cond uct very important i nspections of the nuclear reactor plants onboard your ship and intentiona l l y f'al si lied log entries that the work had been completed. Addi tionally, without kno\\ing the rcspon i bili ty of the others Sailor invol ved, you fai led to shO\\ that your punishment was unjust. The Board also agreed with the advisory opinion Lhat you placed the safety of your shipmates in jeopardy and made a false official statemem covering your dereliction of duty. The Board nored rhat after your nonjudicial punishment (NJP), it was explained you had the right to file an appeal to the next higher authorit}within fi \'c days if you thought the punishment was unjust or disproportionate to the offense. You did not appeal your NJ P and in so doing fai led to avail yourself of your first best chance of overturni ng or ntit igating the punishment.

rurlher, in order lo sel aside an NJP, the punishment has 10 be unjust. The Roard concluded thal your commamli ng officer's decision to impose NJ P \\ a. appropriale, and i t \Vas admin istrati\ ely and
procedurally correct as \\ ri tlcn and filed. The l1oard rurthcr concluded lhal set ting aside your N.IP is not warranted. and lhat such action \Yould be unfair lo your peers, against whom you wi U compete for promotions and assignments. Accordi ngly, your appl ication has been denied.

It is regretted that lhe circu mstances of your case arc such that favorable action carUlot be taken. You arc cntillcd 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 Lhe Board prior to maki ng ils decision in your case. I n lhis regard, it is importan t to keep in mind t hat a presumption or regu lari ty attaches lo all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a coITection or an oflicial naval record, lhe burd en is on the arplicant to dcmonslratc lhc existence of pro bable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

Fxceulivc Director

2