DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOAAD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-8100 ELP
Docket No. 2214-01
22 June 2001
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD CF <éiilllliidllilliaiiliapepemmmmes sects;
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C.1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Case Summary
(3) Subject's Naval Record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
former enlisted member of the United States Navy, applied to
this Board requesting, in effect, that his record be corrected
to show a more favorable characterization of service, reason for
discharge and reenlistment code.
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Madison and Messrs. Pfeiffer
and Silberman reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 20 June 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining 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. Petitioner's application to the Board was filed in a
timely manner.
c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 28 October 1996
for four years at age 18. He served without incident until
4 November 1998 when he received nonjudicial punishment for
failure to obey a lawful regulation by having an unauthorized
guest in the bachelor enlisted quarters. Punishment imposed
consisted of 30 days of restriction and extra duty.
d. Petitioner served without further incident and was
awarded the Navy Achievement Medal for professional achievement
as a plane captain and landing signalman on 1 November 1998
during an emergency recovery operation of a helicopter during a
replenishment evolution. He was advanced to AD3 (E-4) on
16 September 1999.
e. On 28 April 2000 Petitioner was convicted by summary
court-martial of an indecent act with a Japanese female by
having sex with her in the presence of other people. He was
sentenced to reduction in rate to ADAN (E-3), a forfeiture of
$450, and 60 days of restriction.
f. The following day, Petitioner was notified that
administrative discharge processing was being initiated by
reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. He
was advised of his procedural rights and that the characteri-
zation of service could be under other than honorable
conditions. You declined to consult with legal counsel or
submit a statement in his own behalf, and waived the right to
present his case to an administrative discharge board. On 4 May
2000 the commanding officer recommended discharge under other
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. The
discharge authority approved the recommendation and Petitioner
was discharged under other honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct on 19 May 2000 and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment
code. His overall traits average at the time of discharge was
3.22.
g. Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code to individuals discharged by reason of
misconduct.
h. Petitioner states to the effect that there were 11
individuals allegedly involved in the incident which led to his
summary court-martial and discharge. He regrets his actions and
the shame they brought to his family. A Federal Bureau of
Investigation report obtained by the Board shows no civil
convictions subsequent to his discharge.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action. In this regard, the Board notes Petitioner's met or
exceeded the applicable standards of performance, received the
Navy Achievement Medal for outstanding performance during an
emergency recovery operation, and was within six months of the
expiration of his enlistment when he was discharged for
misconduct. While the Board does not condone the misconduct
which led to his discharge, the Board believes his overall
service does not warrant the life-long stigma of a discharge
under other than honorable conditions. The Board concludes that
it would be appropriate and just to recharacterize his service
to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
However, the Board finds the reason for discharge and the
assigned reenlistment code are proper and no changes are
Warranted.
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show
that he was issued a general discharge on 19 May 2000 vice the
discharge under other than honorable conditions actually issued
on that date.
b. That no further relief be granted.
c. That a copy of the Report of Proceedings be filed in
Petitioner's naval record.
d. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs
be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the
Board on 20 Mare 2001.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 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 authority of reference (a), has been approved by the
Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00523
ND04-00523 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040212. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041001. I request this consideration because my discharge was based on one isolated incident over 44 months of service, with no other adverse action.I entered the U.S. Navy in May of 1989.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02968-01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting changes in the reason for discharge and reenlistment code. The discharge i. Petitioner provides copies of Evaluation Reports from March 1996 through June 1998 which show he was consistently marked as "Meets Standards" (3.0) or The evaluation report submitted upon separation was not provided by Petitioner and presumably was adverse, and no longer recommended him for...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00498
Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a service member’s conduct or performance outweigh the positive aspects of the service member’s military record. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 27, effective 27 Mar 2000 until Present, Article...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03253-02
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member in the Naval Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show a better characterization of service, separation code and reenlistment code. At the time of Petitioner's separation an average of 2.0 in all the ITA marks assigned during an enlistment was required for an honorable characterization of service. The Board notes his period of good service from 14 April 1998 to 17...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02341-01
2341-01 10 August 2001 From: To: Subj: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy RECORD OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C.1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's Naval Record 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show a more favorable discharge and reenlistment code than the other than honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05603-01
e. Petitioner was subsequently considered for promotion to paygrade E-4 and paygrade E-5 with a corrected date of rank in was promoted to paygrade E-5 effective 1 December 2000. f. Petitioner believes that since she was promised that she could reenlist with her original date of rank of 1 June 1997 and all her enlistment processing documents were completed reflecting the original date of rank and it was entered into the Marine Corps mechanized system that the date of rank should not have been...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00227
930708: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. 930805: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).930907: Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2000-160
He stated that the “uncontroverted fact is that [he] was found to be ‘in the Line of Duty and the injury was not due to misconduct.’” The applicant alleged that he did not know when he underwent a physical examination on May 11, 1998, that it was his discharge physical and that he did not see the report until June 12, 1998,1 after he had already been discharged. He alleged that there is no record that the Coast Guard processed his objection. The disability must render the member unfit to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 02329-00
The discharge authority approved the ADB recommendation and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions. -- -- h. On 8 March 1990, Petitioner appeared with counsel before the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) . The NDRB found Petitioner to be credible and candid in his testimony and believed the circumstances described by Petitioner had occurred.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06967-00
PERS-832C states that he “was, in fact, convicted of DUI under a Deferred Prosecution agreement and his command had every right to document that event in his service record.” They further state “The fact that he met the required obligations, applied for and received a court dismissal of the charge two years later does not negate the incident.” They conclude that documentation supporting that significant event should remain in the record; and that maintaining such documents is essential to...