DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 YTC Docket No: 5820-I7/ 292I-I5 Dear This is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 5 July 20I 7. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of28 June 20I6, that your application had been denied. Your request for reconsideration was reviewed in accordance with Board ofCorrection of Naval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious reconsideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Because your application was submitted with new assertions and a new request for relief that were not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest ofjustice to review your most recent application. In this regard, your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records on 27 August 20I8. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, available portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies, and the relevant Advisory Opinion (AO) from 20I5, along with your I4 September 20I5 rebuttal to that AO. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period ofactive duty on I 3 September 20 I 0. On 7 May 20 I 4, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for dereliction ofduty and false official statement. While you were on active duty, you filed a request with the Board for Correction ofNaval Records for set aside ofyour NJP. The previous Board carefully reviewed your request and considered an AO dated 20 July 2015, and your rebuttal to that AO. The previous Board denied your request for a set aside of the NJP. The previous Board considered your application for relief, the AO, your rebuttal, and your acknowledgement that you failed to conduct certain inspections ofthe nuclear reactor plants onboard your ship and intentionally falsified log entries. While your first application to the Board was pending, you were discharged on 9 July 20I5 from the Navy on the basis ofunsatisfactory performance, and received a general characterization ofservice and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. In your current request, you ask for reinstatement in the Navy so that you may continue to serve honorably. You provide an affidavit from a fellow Sailor who also received NJP, which establishes that you were the only Sailor who was "denuked" after being found guilty of failure to follow a lawful order and falsifying official documents. The Board considered your request in light ofthe Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum of25 July 18, "Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records Regarding Equality, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations." The Board noted.that paragraph 6j of the memorandum states that "(s)imilarly situated Service members sometimes receive disparate punishments ... While a court-martial or a command would be within its authority to choose a specific disposition forum or issue a certain punishment, DRBs and BCM/NRs should nevertheless consider uniformity and unfair disparities in punishments as a basis for relief." The Board carefully considered your request for reconsidered and noted that you state that although the NJP may have been lawfully imposed, that your separation was unjust as you were treated more harshly than any other of your fellow shipmates. The Board reviewed statement which contends that you were the only one of five individuals who appeared at Captain's Mast who was "denuked." The Board noted that states you were "denuked," one Sailor was not reduced in rank due to being a junior sailor, and the remaining three Sailors received the same punishments for the same offenses. The Board noted raises an issue ofdisparity in the punishment between you and four individuals for the same offenses, but that he does not addr~ss the factual similarities (of differences) between each Sailor's actions and circumstances. The Board noted that absent information about the ranks and positional authority ofeach ofthe four other individuals, and without the specific facts which the Commanding Officer considered for each person when imposing NJP, that it could not find that you had been treated unjustly. Without more information regarding the factual circumstances surrounding each involved Sailor's actions and responsibilities, the Board determined that affidavit does not establish that you were treated unfairly, or separated in error or unjustly. The Board determined that your general discharge appears to have been executed properly on the basis of a lawfully imposed NJP, and does not merit corrective action due to an error or injustice. It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour current reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken again. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. In the absence of sufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. It is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director