Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02397-01
Original file (02397-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

ELP
Docket No. 2397-01
13 August 2001

Dear 

w

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

considered your application on
Your allegations of error and injustice were

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
8 August 2001.
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, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.

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.

On the first day of recruit training,

You enlisted in the Navy on 11 June 1998 for four years at age
21.
you were being retained despite a fraudulent induction as
evidenced by your failure to disclose a dependent child and a
conviction for driving without a license.
if it was later found that you failed to disclose additional
information, you could be processed for administrative
separation.

you were advised that

You were warned that

The record reflects that you were reported in an unauthorized
absence (UA) status from 29 December 1998 until 7 January 1999.
No disciplinary action is shown in the record for this 10 day
period of UA.
However, on 4 January 1999 charges were preferred
against you for signing a false official statement and writing 22
bad checks totaling about $1628.57.
a special court-martial and you returned from UA on 7 January
1999.

The charges were referred to

On 15 April 1999 you submitted a request for an other than
honorable discharge for the good of the service to escape trial
by court-martial on the foregoing charges.
admitted that you were guilty of the offenses charged.
submitting this request you conferred with a qualified military
lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and warned
of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a
discharge.
your request and directed an other than honorable discharge for
the good of the service.

IOn 30 April 1999 the discharge authority approved

You were so discharged on 12 May 1999.

In your request, you
Prior to

On 1 February 2001, the Naval Discharge Review Board denied your
request for an upgrade of your discharge.

recharacteri-
However, no justification for such a
The Board noted your contentions to the

In its review of your application the Board carefully searched
for any mitigating factors which might warrant a  
zation of your discharge.
change could be found.
effect that the bad checks were due to transferring the bank
account you were using in recruit training to a bank near your
new command; that you were harassed while on legal hold by a
chief petty officer and assigned to menial tasks; a Navy lawyer
said you were not going to be tried because of evidence brought
to the attention of the military judge; and that a new defense
lawyer advised you to accept an administrative discharge since
you would not go to the brig and would receive a general
discharge.
You claim that when you signed the DD Form 214 you
noted the other than honorable discharge and RE-4 reenlistment
code and brought these errors to the attention of the  
man, but were told to "deal with  
told at the time of discharge that the DD Form 214 would be
mailed to you at home, but you never received it.
You contend
that you called the command and were told the DD Form 214 was on
the way, but you did not receive it until June 2000 after you
contacted your congressman for assistance.
several weeks after your discharge,
Service 
for being a deserter from the JOHN F. KENNEDY, and that your
protests-that you had been
did not have a copy of the
claim they took you to the
criminal and forced you to
were released several days
were in fact discharged from

You also claim that
Naval Criminal Investigative
(NCIS) agents came to your place of work and arrested you

discharged were ignored because you
your DD Form 214 to show them.
You
ship in handcuffs, treated you like a
get underway with the ship, but you
later when the NCIS found out that you

You claim that you were

the service.

it."

personnel-

The Board concluded that the
were insufficient to warrant
given the offenses for which
face trial by court-martial.
the good of the service is an administrative discharge and is

foregoing contentions and claims
recharacterization of your discharge
you accepted discharge rather than

The Board noted that discharge for

2

Furthermore, you requested

guiltto the charges, and your

rarely under honorable conditions.
discharge and admitted your  
signature acknowledges you understood that the discharge would be
under other than honorable conditions.
The Board believed that
considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for
discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved since, by
this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard
labor and a 
Further, the Board concluded
that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when
your request for discharge was granted and you should not be
permitted to change it now.
are neither supported by the evidence of record nor by any
evidence submitted in support of your application.
circumstances of your case,
was proper and no change is warranted.
application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.

the Board concluded your discharge

The names and votes of the members

jpunitive discharge.

Your numerous contentions and claims

Given all the

Accordingly, your

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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Feb 05 13_50_44 CST 2001

    My defense counsel did not question During the (ADB) I was upset that the (ADB) any witness and myself doing (sic) the (ADB) about (0’s) behavior. Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) make this guarantee applicable to an ADB respondent by stating that such an individual is entitled to “qualified counsel,” and defining that term as “counsel qualified under Article 27(b) of the UCMJ.” Articles 3640200.7 and 3620200.lv of the United States v. Marshall, 45 Strickland, at 687. Article...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07474-03

    Original file (07474-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 25 November 1968 at age 23. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03872-01

    Original file (03872-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 5 October 1999, AO2(AW/SW) (Petitioner) (then a frocked Chief Petty Officer) called the house of a shipmate, EM3 (B). a verbal argument over the phone, which ended when ENFN (A) gave (Petitioner) the address to EM3 (B's) house. commanding officer at the NJP and that of the ADB.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03221-01

    Original file (03221-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also noted your contention that you were told by your recruiter that you could be an engineman, but you were actually assigned for training as a boiler technician. Board concluded that the foregoing factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the fact that you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial The Board believed that for a UA of more than three months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03202-01

    Original file (03202-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. considered your application on Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 3 October 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. discharge authority approved the request...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02615-03

    Original file (02615-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Although the request for discharge is not in your record, it appears that you subsequently requested an other than honorable discharge in order to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01120-99

    Original file (01120-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. However, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the serious...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00349

    Original file (ND02-00349.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Based on his conduct and the associated medical documentation, I direct PC3 C_ be separated from the naval service with an Honorable discharge. The Applicant was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) with Antisocial and Schizotypal features by competent medical authority at the Mental Health Department, Naval Hospital, Sigonella.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02793-06

    Original file (02793-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish he existence of probable material error or injustice. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01042-01

    Original file (01042-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior to submitting this On 27 January 1983, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your request for an upgrade of your discharge. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of an NJP and the fact you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for more than nine months of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...