DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 
Docket No: 736-16 
DEC 21 2016 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions ofTitle 10 ofthe United States Code, Section 1552. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 12 August 2016. The names and votes ofthe 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 ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 
regulations, and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, Board regulations state that personal 
appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board determines that 
such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In your case, the Board determined that a 
personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of 
record. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

You were commissioned an ensign on 24 May 2000, and promoted to the rank ofLieutenant 
Commander on 1 January 2010. On 8 November 2014, a preliminary inquiry was conducted into 
allegations that you violated the Uniform Code.of Military Justice (UCMJ). The facts ofthe 
preliminary inquiry revealed that you were involved inan incident that seriously compromised 
your character and standing as a leader within your command. Consequently, on 
1 December 2014, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for conduct unbecoming an 
officer and gentleman and were awarded a punitive letter ofreprimand (PLOR). Prior to 
imposing NJP, you were afforded the opportunity to consult counsel and were advised ofyour 
rights, to include your right to refuse imposition ofNJP_ You elected to accept NJP and 
provided matters for consideration during the NJP punishment proceedings. On 8 December and 
11 December 2014, you appealed your NJP and PLOR, respectively. During the period from 
19 December 2014 to 6 January 2015, your appeals were considered via your chain of command, 
and the recommendations were forwarded to the Commander, Command 
for decision. On 8 January 2015, after consideration ofyour appeal and evidence presented, as 
well as a review by the Deputy Force Judge Advocate, the Commander, 
Command denied your appeal ofyour NJP and the PLOR. 

Upon completion ofthe appeal process, on 26 January 2015, your Commanding Officer submitted 
a report ofNJP via your chain of command to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command 
(CNPC), for review and inclusion in your official military personnel file (OMPF). In the report, 
your Commanding Officer requested that you be detached for cause due to a loss ofcredibility 
and authority necessary for you to be an effective leader within the command. However, your 
Commanding Officer did not suggest that your behavior was such that you should be required to 
show cause for retention in the naval service. On 4 February and 18 March 2015, you provided a 
statement to CNPC regarding the report ofNJP, the PLOR, and the detachment for cause request. 
On 15 June 2015, CNPC approved your Commanding Officer's request for your detachment for 
cause and further determined that you should not be required to show cause for retention in the 
naval service. The CNPC directed that the adverse documents regarding this case be inserted into 
your OMPF and that you be afforded the opportunity to submit a statement in response to his 
decision. The Board found no evidence in your OMPF, and you provided none with your DD149 
petition, that you submitted a statement regarding the insertion ofadverse material into your 
record.  

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application with supporting documentation, 
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors. The Board also considered your contention 
that your command's actions against you and the resulting punishment imposed is unjust. 
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief, given the 
seriousness ofyour substantiated misconduct which resulted in your NJP, PLOR, and 
detachment for cause. In this regard, the Board concurred with the comment made by the 
Commander, , that the service member's decision to report your 
misconduct to the command "was appropriate and consistent with the obligation to report known 
or suspected offenses under the UCMJ." The Board noted that, after a preliminary inquiry into 
the allegations, you were notified of the intent to impose NJP, and that you did not refuse NJP. 
Further, your appeal ofNJP was denied after it was found to be just and proportionate to the 
offense, and within the legal limits prescribed by the UCMJ. The PLOR was found to be 
accurate and relevant to the offenses committed and the punishment imposed, and within the 
Commanding Officer's discretion. The Board concluded that the imposition ofNJP, the PLOR, 
and detachment for cause were all justified and that you were afforded all ofyour due process 
rights. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour 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 ofthe 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 ofregularity attaches to all official records. 
Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 



Executive Director