DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X

2 NAVY ANNE

S

WASHINGTON DC

 

20370-510&LP:  

jdh

Docket No: 8031-00
27 February 2001

A three-member panel of the Board,
sitting in executive session
considered your application and a majority recommended that your
naval record be corrected as set forth in the attached report
dated 2 February 2001.
In accordance with current regulations,
the designated representative of the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs conducted an independent
review of the Board's proceedings and approved the minority
recommendation that your application be denied.

You are advised that reconsideration of your case will be granted
only upon the presentation of new and material evidence not
previously considered by the Board and then,
only upon the
recommendation of the Board and approval by
the Assistant
Secretary.

It is regretted that a more favorable reply

cannot be made.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT  OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

ELP
Docket No. 8031-00
2 February 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) Case Summary
(2) 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 naval record be
corrected by upgrading the discharge under other than honorable
conditions issued on 26 May 1992.

The Board, consisting of Messrs. Milner,  

2.
Geisler reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 24 January 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on
the available evidence of record.
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Documentary material

McPartlin, and

The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
3.
pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and  
finds as follows:

injust+ce

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  

Petitipner's  application to

the Board was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the
interest of justice to waive the statute
review the application on its merits.

  of limitations and

C .

Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 25 September 1990

for four years at age 19.
Petitioner was advanced to MMFA (E-2)
and served without incident until 25 March 1992 when he received
nonjudicial punishment for conspiring with two other Sailors to
steal an automobile, and stealing that automobile and a Navy
raincoat, the property of an 
of reduction in rate to MMFR (E-l), forfeitures of $392 per
month for two months, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.

Punishment imposed consisted

MS3.

d.

h% was

and waived his right to

He was advised of his procedural rights,

On 27 March 1992 Petitioner was notified that  
being considered for discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense.
declined to consult with legal counsel,
present his case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On
20 April 1972 the commanding officer (CO) recommended discharge
under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.
In his recommendation, the CO stated that Petitioner initially
stole a raincoat from the hospital galley.
Upon discovering a
set of keys and identification tags to a rental vehicle in the
pocket of the raincoat, he searched for and located the vehicle
in the parking lot.
The CO further stated that Petitioner then
enlisted the help of two acquaintances and paid one of the
individuals $100 to steal the vehicle, drive it to a shopping
center, park it, and return the keys to him.
that Petitioner was a thief and had no potential for further
service.
recommendation for separation and Petitioner was discharged
under other than honorable conditions on 26 May 1992.

The Chief of Naval Personnel approved the

The CO asserted

e.

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied

Petitioner's request for upgrade of his discharged on 28 April
1997.
that he would not take a car.
would do it and was shocked when he did.
touched the car or saw the car again.

At that time, Petitioner stated that he bet an individual
He did not believe the individual

He claimed he never

f.

Petitioner now contends that he did not conspire to

He claims the two individuals who stole the car

steal a car.
stated that he was with them.
his wife, course completion certificates, and letters attesting
to his good character and post-service conduct. A
Bureau of Investigation Report indicates he has no
convictions.

Petitioner provides a letter from

Federal
post-service

2

MAJORITY CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
McPartlin and Geisler, conclude
majority, consisting of Messrs.
In this
that Petitioner's request warrants favorable action.
regard, the majority notes Petitioner youth and immaturity, the
issues he presented to the NDRB,
conduct since discharge.
misconduct which led to Petitioner's discharge.
majority believes his immaturity played a key role in  
th%% sole
incident of misconduct in more than 20 months of service, and it
does not warrant the'life-long stigma of a discharge under other
than honorable conditions. Accordingly, the majority concludes
that it would be appropriate and just to recharacterize his
discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general
discharge under honorable conditions.

and his good post-service
The majority does not condone the

However, the

MAJORITY 

RECCMMENDATION:

a.

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show

that he was issued a general discharge on 26 May 1992 by reason
of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense vice the
other than honorable discharge issued on that date.

b.

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 29 August 2000.

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

Mr. Milner disagrees with the majority and concludes that
Petitioner's request does not warrant favorable action.
regard, the minority member initially notes the seriousness of
the offenses and believes that Petitioner's misconduct fully
warranted a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
Further, the NJP evidence that was considered in this case no
longer exists, so the Board has no way of confirming or refuting
Petitioner's version of events.
The minority also notes the
inconsistency in Petitioner's statements to this Board and the
one he made to the NDRB.

 
~
In this

3

In view of the foregoing, the minority finds no injustice
warranting corrective action.

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner's request be denied.

It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's

4.
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.

-

/.&gz@pA

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Acting Recorder

The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your

5.
review and action.

MINORITY REPORT:
Reviewed and approved:

FE8

l,6 

zoo1

(Manpower And Reserve Affairs)