Docket No: 10667-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.  
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your most recent application on 8 March 2021.  The names and votes of the panel members will be furnished upon request.  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, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, including the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You filed two previous petitions with this Board.  You filed your first petition in 2015, (No. 4703-15), which was denied.  In your second petition, which you filed in 2017, (No. 10155-17), the Board addressed the new matter that you provided, which was a letter from your former commanding officer of USS  (CVN ), and determined that relief was not warranted.  In your current petition, you do not specify which, if any, of your assertions you consider to be new matter or argument, so the Board reviewed your most recent petition and all of its supporting materials in its entirety.  The factual background has been set forth before and the Board recounts below a brief chronology of events.   
 
You were appointed as an officer in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 6 March 2010.  You were assigned to USS  (CVN ).  On 9 December 2012, a preliminary inquiry was conducted regarding the Radiation Health Program (RHP), which was under your control.  As a result of this inquiry, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 17 December 2012, for attempting to conspire to destroy military property, making a false official statement, and conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.  You received a punitive letter of reprimand.  You did not appeal the NJP.  On 18 December 2012, you acknowledged receipt of your punitive letter of reprimand, and checked that you did not desire to appeal but that you wanted to submit a statement.  You submitted a statement explaining that you were asked to recall an event that occurred three months prior, that you stated the facts to the best of your recollection, and that you did not mislead or deceive the investigating officer.   
 
On 18 December 2012, your commanding officer forwarded a report of your NJP to Commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC) (PERS 83).  Your commanding officer recommended that you be detached for cause, have your promotion to lieutenant commander withdrawn and withheld, but that you not be required to show cause for your retention.  On 25 February 2013, Commander,  forwarded his recommendation concurring with the recommendations of your commanding officer with the exception that you be made to show cause for retention.  On 18 March 2013, Commander, , forwarded his recommendation concurring with Commander, .  
 
On 23 July 2013, Commander, Navy Personnel Command approved the request to detach you for cause.  On 14 August 2013, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing by reason of misconduct and substandard performance of duty.  At that time, because you were considered a probationary officer, you were not afforded the right to request an administrative discharge board.  You acknowledged your rights with respect to administrative processing on 7 October 2013.  On 23 January 2014, Navy Personnel Command recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that you be separated from the naval service with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service for unacceptable conduct, and to recoup community manage bonuses as applicable.  On 11 February 2014, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs approved the recommendation and you were so separated on 30 April 2014. 
 
As noted above, you filed two previous petitions with this Board.  You then filed a petition with the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), which denied your petition on 31 July 2019.  In your petition before the NDRB, you contended, in sum, that you acted within policy with respect to the alleged misconduct, and that you did not make a false statement.  You also reiterated that your commanding officer did not recommend that you be made to show cause for retention.  Finally, you also requested a measure of clemency based on your post-service accomplishments and the passage of time. 
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  In your current petition, you contend that you did not engage in the alleged misconduct for which you were ultimately separated, that your commanding officer recommended that you not show cause for retention and in fact petitioned for you to be retained in the service, and that you did not receive a separation board prior to being separated with an “OTH” [sic], and that is a gross injustice given your 19-plus years of honorable service.  However, after careful review, the Board concluded these contentions were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case.  The Board noted that you were not separated with an “OTH” (other than honorable characterization of service), but rather you received a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  As a probationary officer, it was appropriate for you to be separated using notification procedure where the least favorable characterization of service was general (under honorable conditions).  The Board determined that you contentions were outweighed by the serious offenses for which you were discharged.   
 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or 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,