DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1767-19 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This letter is in reference to your application of 20 December 2018 for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found that the evidence submitted was 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 application on 7 January 2020. The names and votes of the 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 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. The Board also considered the12 April 2019, advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) Office of Legal Counsel (PERS-00J). The AO was provided to you on 24 April 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your 22 December 2017, Administrative Counseling (Page 13); 22 December 2017, Court Memorandum documenting your non-judicial punishment (NJP); fitness report for the reporting period 15 September 2017 to 22 December 2017; and fitness report for the reporting period 23 December 2017 to 1 March 2018 from your official military personnel file (OMPF). The Board considered your contentions that the commander that imposed your NJP was bias and later relieved of command for fraternization; there was no evidence of an unduly familiar relationship, but rather a working relationship; you were rushed through the NJP process; and not given an opportunity to review the evidence against you until after the NJP. You also contend that while checking out of the command, the Command Master Chief informed you that another Service member who was involved, admitted to everything. The Board noted that you were the subject of NJP for an unduly familiar relationship with an enlisted sailor outside of your paygrade. The Board also noted that you were assigned to a vessel and thus properly notified of your rights in keeping with the vessel exception, afforded the opportunity to consult with a military lawyer, acknowledged and signed your Article 31 rights, and were afforded the opportunity to appeal the NJP. You chose not to appeal the NJP. The Board, substantially concurred with the AO that you did not provide substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity. In this regard, you admitted to dancing with the junior sailor, participated in activities that would look to others as if you had an unduly familiar relationship, she stated to investigators that she believed she had an unduly familiar relationship with you and your Commanding Officer’s, 23 January 2018, NJP Report states that you “pled guilty to the offenses and specifications.” The Board also noted that you were repeatedly afforded the opportunity to submit a statement for the record and you chose not to submit statements for the NJP or in response to the contested page 13. The Board noted, too, that you submitted a 23 July 2018 request to set aside the NJP to your current Commanding Officer , in which he determined that you provided no new evidence and the evidence used as the basis for the NJP which included voluntary statements were sufficient to uphold the NJP, and thus denied your request. The Board also reviewed your contentions. Concerning your contention that the commander that imposed the NJP was bias and was later relieved of command for fraternization, the Board found no evidence of bias. The Board further concurred with the AO and determined that the commander’s relief from command occurred after your NJP, and had no impact on your conduct that led to your NJP. Concerning your contention that you were rushed through the NJP process and not given an opportunity to review any of the evidence against you, the Board found no evidence to support your contention and noted that after the NJP you did not chose to provide statements for the record to address your contention. Concerning your contention that another Service member admitted violations related to your NJP, the Board found no evidence of that admission and you provided none. Moreover, the Board determined the evidence was sufficient to substantiate the charges at NJP, the Commanding Officer was within his authority to impose NJP, and the NJP was conducted pursuant to the Manual for Courts-Martial. The Board also determined that based upon the fore going determinations, there is no basis to remove your page 13, fitness report for the reporting period 15 September 2017 to 22 December 2017, and fitness report for the reporting period 23 December 2017 to 1 March 2018. The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action. 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 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.