Consumer complaint received 2016-12-03 00:00:00
Product: Bank account or service — Checking account
Issue: Using a debit or ATM card — 
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/2016 I traveled to XXXX to experience the night life. Unknowing of the dangers and known risk of that area, I opened a tab at a local bar/restaurant. My credit card remained in the bar tender 's possession approximately 3-5 hours. I did not submit fraudulent claims for 3 other transactions made that day because they were transaction that I made. The next day, I received a notice from my bank, Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) which notified me of the {$830.00} dollar transaction that was made on my account. It asked whether the transaction was made by me, and it was not to reply with a 'no ' to the text message. I immediately replied with the obvious no. Once logging into my account, I noticed two separate transactions made at an ATM machine. I once again immediately notified my bank. Since I 'm stationed a few hours south of XXXX, and the nearest NFCU branch is 2 hours away from me, I could not make it into the bank until 4 days later. While at the branch, the bank teller deposed of the card in which the fraudulent transactions were made, and issued me a new one. Additionally, she initiated a claim only for the two ATM transactions since they had already posted to my account. They issued me a provisional refund for the two ATM transactions. She advised to contact NFCU via phone once the {$830.00} transaction posted to my account to initiate a separate claim. Once the transaction posted to my account, I contacted NFCU and initiated the claim. The representative who took the claim, annotate vague and information that lacked detail which could have painted a better picture for the investigator. I found out about the notes that were taken on the account because they were read back to me once I called to get an update on the claim. 
I noted to the person who took the claim, that I attempted to notify the XXXX authorities, but was advised that they were unable to do anything since the incident was a civil matter. After doing some research, there were several warnings posted by the XXXX of similar cased involving fraudulent transactions and service members being " drugged '', and mugged. I tried to relay this information to the person taking the claim, but she was uninterested of the additional detailed and just wanted the basics. She also advised me that a provisional credit was going to be issued within 48 hours. When I asked for a good time to follow back on the claim, she stated that the investigator would not be available until to following XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), due to the holiday break. This was on ot about XX/XX/XXXX. When I finally called back XX/XX/XXXX to get an update on the claim and inquire on the status of the provisional credit I was advised by another representative that he was unable to get me details on the account and that I needed to call back to following day to speak to my fraud investigator on my case. The representative who took the called asked if I wanted to leave a message for my investigator ; which I did. I asked the representative to relay to the investigator that I was XXXX, and did n't have reliable cell phone as a means for communication. Additionally, I requested that the investigator send me an email so that I can move to a location where I could call him. I never received that email. The following day, I called back and was advised by another representative that my claim was denied. Bases for being denied : since there was a chip available on my card, and because the chip is designed to prevent fraudulent transaction like the one I reported, that the claim was denied. 
There were no documentation or information provided to me which demonstrated that Navy Federal Credit Union 's investigation was conducive to a bank who looks out for their customer 's best interest. No explanation. Am I protected under ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS ( REGULATION E )?

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation