DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TRG
Docket No: 9013-97
25 May 1999

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 18 May 1999.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
Board.
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and.applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.

Your allegations of error and

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 29
January 1994 and reported to active duty on 13 April 1994.
record shows that you received nonjudicial punishment
February 1996 for three specifications of failure to obey an
order or regulation.
February 1995 to 15 January 1996 is adverse and you were not
recommended for advancement or retention in the Navy.
in March 1996 you agreed to remain on active duty for an
a_dditional period of 16 months.

 

The performance evaluation for the period 1

However,

(NJP) on 15

The

On 6 June 1996 you received another nonjudicial punishment for
violations of Articles 86 and 107 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.

The specifications read as follows:

. 

. 

. on or about 19 April 1996, without authority

to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of
duty, to wit:
the 0830 muster for a half day of work
after her duty day.

. 

. 

. on or about 2 May 1996, with intent to

deceive, make to 

Legalman First Class . . . . an official

.

"1 was never told about having to
day," or words to that

statement, to wit:
work a half day after our duty  
effect, which statement was false in that (she) was
told by Boatswain's Mate First Class . . . . that the duty
section had to work a half day after duty days in the
presence of two other section members, and was then
known by (her) to be so false.

The punishment imposed was an oral reprimand.

In your appeal   of the NJP you contended that you were improperly
punished for a violation of Article 86, UCMJ because one of the
elements of that offense is that the individual had actual
knowledge of the duty requirement.
that you were not feeling well and when you called in at 0530,
you were told to go to medical.
and did not go to medical until 1800.

You said that you fell asleep

In addition, you pointed out

Concerning the false official statement charge, you stated that
the 
BMl could not be certain whether he informed you of the new
requirement on the 11th or the 12th of April. You said that you
were not at work on 12 April 1996 when everyone was informed of
the change in duty requirements and therefore, it was not proven
that you made a false official statement.

In his endorsement on your appeal the commanding officer stated,
in part, as follows:

I strongly

In reinterviewing the witnesses, I confirmed

(She) bases her appeal on the grounds that the
punishment is unjust because she was never informed of
the required muster after a duty day.
disagree.
that (she) knew that she was required to report for
duty on 19 April 1996.
order directly from 
knew because they discussed the muster among themselves
when (she) stated her dissatisfaction with the extra
Whether or not she had
half day work requirement.
special liberty is a moot point; she worked three full
days and her duty day after her special liberty which
gave her ample time to learn of the new work
requirement 

Even if she did not hear the
BMl . . . . witnesses confirmed she

. . 

.

(She) chose not to muster at the require time and

deliberately made a false statement to the  
regarding her knowledge of the required half day work
Such blatant disregard for authority undermines
day.
the basis precepts of good order and discipline,
especially in a division which employs several junior
Sailors.

IN1

2

.

I believe the evidence reviewed and the subsequent

. 
interviews with the witnesses and the chain of command
supports a finding of guilty regarding the charges and
their specifications.
and knew of the half day of work requirement and many
witnesses verified this fact deems the punishment
awarded as appropriate.

The fact that (she) was informed

On 8 July 1996, the general court-martial convening authority
dismissed the false official statement charge without explanation
but concluded that the charge of failure to go to your appointed
Since you received the minimum
place of duty was appropriate.
the punishment was considered to be
punishment allowed at NJP,
proportionate to the remaining offense.

In the evaluation for the period 16 January to 15 July 1997, an
overall trait average of 3.17 was assigned and you were
recommended for advancement and retention in the Navy.
released from active duty on 12 August 1997 with your service
characterized as honorable.

You were

In your application you contend that since the GCM authority
dismissed the false official statement charge, it proves that you
did not know about the half day work requirement and the charge
of failure to go to your appointed place of duty must also fall.

In reaching its conclusion to the contrary, the Board noted that
there is no explanation of the GCM authority's action in
dismissing the false official statement charge.
be that the record did not convince him that you were actually
told of the duty requirement by the  
specification.
commanding officer also interviewed other witnesses who stated
that you were aware of the requirement.
you had to know of the new work requirement and therefore the
charge of failure to go to your appointed place of duty was
appropriate.
not too severe for the offense committed.

In this regard, the Board noted that the

The Board further concluded that the punishment was

BMl as alleged in the

However, it may

The Board concluded that

Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be  

The names and

furnishedrupon  request.

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 submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously 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,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

4