Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No:
14 April 1999
101-99
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF
(a)
Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Case Summary
(3) Subject's naval record
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Encl:
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
1.
former enlisted member of the United States Navy filed enclosure
(1) with this Board requesting a better characterization of
service than the bad conduct discharge issued on 17 October 1989.
The Board, consisting of Mr. Brezna, Mr. Kastner and Mr.
2.
Milner, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 6 April 1999
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record.
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
Documentary material considered by
The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
3.
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as
follows:
a.
Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b.
Although it appears that enclosure (1) was not filed in
a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the
statute of limitations and review the application on its merits.
C .
Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 24 October 1984 at
age 26. At that time he had completed almost eight years of
active service on two prior enlistments.
d.
Petitioner then served without incident until 23 May
1988.
On that date he was convicted by a special court-martial
of three specifications of misconduct under Article 134, Uniform
The specifications read as follows:
Code of Military Justice.
Specification 1:
under 16 years of age,
breast, rubbing his hand over her back, and pulling the
Commit an indecent act upon a female
to wit: by fondling her left
back of her brassiere and letting it snap against her
back with intent to gratify his sexual desires.
Specification 2:
to wit: by squeezing her
under 16 years of age,
buttocks with his hand with intent to gratify his
sexual desires.
Commit an indecent act upon a female
Take indecent liberties with a female
look_,like the type that would go off and rip all
Specification 3:
under 16 years of age, to wit:
not
your clothes off, but it does cross my mind because you
are very attractive", with intent to arouse his sexual
desires.
by saying to her
"I may
Petitioner was acquitted of one other specification.
sentenced him to reduction to pay grade E-l, forfeiture of $400
per month for three months,
months and a bad conduct discharge.
was issued on 17 October 1989.
confinement at hard labor for three
The bad conduct discharge
The court
Petitioner stated in his application to the Naval
, in effect,
DischErge Review Board (NDRB)
was not harmed and the case was completely blown out of
proportion.
employed since discharge and has worked for the City of Myrtle
Beach since January 1993.
has reported that Petitioner has no arrest record.
He has submitted evidence that he had been steadily
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
that the teenage girl
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
In reaching its decision the Board notes the isolated
nature of the offense and his good record both before and after
his court-martial conviction.
Therefore, the Board concludes
that Petitioner has been adequately punished for his misconduct
and that the discharge should now be recharacterized to general
as a matter of clemency.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on
a.
17 October 1989 he was issued a general discharge by reason of
misconduct vice the bad conduct discharge now of record.
That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's
b.
naval record.
C .
That the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed on
2
request that Petitioner's application was received on 5 January
1999.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
4.
and that the foregoing is a true and
review and deliberations,
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
p&
ROBERT D.
Recorder
ZSALMAN
.
LDSMITH
Acting Recorder
Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
5.
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
has been approved by the Board on
authority of reference (a),
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
3
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01391
ND03-01391 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030820. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00686
ND99-00686 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990427, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Specification 3: In that HN D_ L. E_ did, at the Naval Hospital Pensacola, Florida, on or about April 1995, commit an indecent assault upon K_ R. G_ a person not his wife, by sliding his hands up and down her leg, with the intent to gratify his lust or...
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00065
After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 970820: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:Specification: Absent from PT formation on 0530-0545, 970805.Awarded forfeiture of $300.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 30 days, reduction to PFC. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013651
He states, in effect, he would like his discharge upgraded so he would be eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits as an Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm veteran who served honorably from 1987 through 1996. The applicant's military records show he was appointed in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Medical Services Corps as a captain on 23 June 1987 with 10 years of constructive service credit. Due to the unavailability of records, AHRC officials were unable to provide the...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00302
After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant’s issue states: “The discharge is improper and my discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 17 years of professional, dedicated service with no other adverse action. Thank you.” The NDRB reviewed the applicant’s service record and found the reason for the applicant’s...
NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01343
Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 5420.174C, Manual for Discharge Review 1984, Chapter 2, Authority/Policy for Departmental Discharge Review, paragraph 2.5, Authority for Review of Naval Discharges; Jurisdictional Limitations states, in part:The Board shall have no authority to:(1) review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial; (2) alter the judgement of a court-martial, except that the discharge or dismissal awarded may be changed for purposes of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511850C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the findings and sentence of his summary court-martial dated 14 September 1994 be set aside, that he be restored to the pay grade of E-7, and that a relief for cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report covering the period January 1994 through February 1994 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The TJAG concluded that the applicant failed to establish any basis for relief for his conviction or sentence and denied his application. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02478
Headquarters Twenty-Second Air Force/JA reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial be approved. On 18 February 1990, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB reviewed the evidence of record and concluded the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064786C070421
Because of his conviction, the applicant could not reenlist without a waiver approved by PERSCOM. Pertinent Army regulations state that the authority to grant a waiver of a court-martial conviction disqualification for enlistment rests with PERSCOM. The evidence shows that he was sufficiently informed to know that he required a waiver to reenlist, and that he had the option of requesting relief from his conviction under Article 69(b), UCMJ.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017061
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 30 July 1975, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a General Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 12 August 1975 with an under honorable conditions...