DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
WMP
Docket No:
27 January 2003
0537-02
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 15 January 2003.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
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 Navy on 27 July 1998
for four years at age 18.
August 1999, when you received nonjudicial punishment
failure to be at your appointed place of duty.
imposed was forfeitures of $200 per month for three months and
20 days of restriction.
You served without incident until 17
(NJP) for
The punishment
On 22 August 1999 you were found to be alcohol dependent and on
13 December 1999 you reported for level III, inpatient alcohol
rehabilitation treatment.
withdrew from this treatment program.
However, on 16 December 1999 you
On 20 January 2000 you received
failure to go to your appointed place of duty.
NJP for three instances of
The punishment
imposed was forfeitures of $400 per month for two months, 30
days of restriction and extra duty, and a reduction in rate.
On 26 January 2000, you were notified that separation action was
being initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct and alcohol rehabilitation failure.
of and retained all of your procedural rights including your
right to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
You were advised
On 26 April 2000, you received NJP for three instances of
failure to go to your appointed place of duty, conspiracy, and
possession and manufacture of military identification cards.
The punishment imposed was a forfeiture of $400 and 30 days of
correctional custody.
On 28 April 2000, the ADB met and found by a vote of 2 to 1 that
you had committed misconduct,
misconduct; and that you were an alcohol rehabilitation failure.
The ADB further recommended that you be separated with a general
discharge.
as evidenced by a pattern of
On 13 June 1986, the commanding officer (CO) forwarded your case
to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (CNPC) recommending
that the general discharge be suspended for a period of 12
months.
and directed that you be counseled and warned concerning the
suspended discharge.
part would be grounds for the CO to vacate the suspension and
execute the general discharge.
On 15 June 2000, CNPC approved the CO's recommendation
CNPC noted that further misconduct on your
On 9 May 2001, you received NJP for attempting to access another
servicemember's e-mail account.
forfeiture of $521, 60 days of restriction and extra duty, and a
reduction in rate.
this NJP.
On 10 May 2001 you submitted an appeal to
The punishment imposed was a
On 2 June 2001, your suspended separation action was vacated
based on your continued misconduct, however, final action of the
separation was held in abeyance pending the appeal to your NJP
of 9 May 2001.
On 17 June 2001 your appeal was granted by the
NJP appeal authority and returned to the commanding officer for
appropriate action.
2
On 11 July 2001, in response to the action of the NJP appeal
authority, the CO changed the previous charge of attempting to
access another servicemember's e-mail account to false official
statement.
reflect that you were not reduced in rate, however, all other
punishment remained in effect.
The punishment previously imposed was changed to
On 2 August 2001, your commanding officer vacated your
previously suspended general discharge and you were so
discharged.
However,
the Board found that the NJP appeal authority
Based on the
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and
immaturity, and your contention that the NJP that resulted in
the vacation of your suspended separation was dismissed on
appeal.
returned your case to the CO for further action.
NJP appeal authority's action,
false official statement and your punishment accordingly.
Furthermore, CNPC stated that during the period of suspension
the CO could vacate the suspension if you engaged in conduct
which resulted in disciplinary action.
Clearly, your conduct
that ultimately resulted in the imposition of NJP violated the
probationary period of your suspended administrative separation.
Therefore, the Board concluded that your general discharge was
appropriate.
an RE-4 reenlistment code was required.
application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Since you were discharged by reason of misconduct,
the CO corrected your NJP to
Accordingly, your
The names and votes of the members
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board.
it is important to keep in mind that
You are entitled to have
In this regard,
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_17_36 CDT 2000
Further, other individuals stated that you did not notify the command until the third duty day after the arrest. You contend that the arrest was reported on the first day back to work; you were directed not to have any contact with anyone on board the submarine, and therefore could not obtain any witnesses; the executive officer threatened further adverse action if you appealed the NJP; and you were told that you would receive additional alcohol rehabilitation prior to discharge. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07317-01
ItGKBtt is assigned when Separation code discharged by reason of misconduct due an individual is to civil conviction.4 q- On 20 June 2001 Petitioner's counsel faxed a supplemental letter of deficiency to NAVPERSCOM responding, in part, as follows to the 4 May 2001 letter from COMPHIBGRU TWO: Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-710 if the (ADB) finds that the preponderance of the evidence does not support one or more of the reasons for separation alleged and recommends retention then the Separation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00801-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 1999. Your record reflects that prior to your reenlistment you had four convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) and had completed in-patient (level 111) alcohol rehabilitation treatment in April 1986. The Board notes that the Navy is very reluctant to discharge an individual with more than 19 years of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05297-02
The GCMCA declined to act on Petitioner's specific complaint about the NJP since applicable directives state that such a disciplinary action is not a proper subject of an Article 138 complaint. OONOV02' to OlMAR15, as corrected by the (GCMCA), refers to the results of (NJP) where the charged deiekination that your Evaluation Report for the reporting period of;ense does not state an offense under the UCMJ. Paragraph 4 q. UCMJ Article 92(1)2 states that it is an offense to or beyond the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04373-01
considered your application on 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. Further, the Board noted the aggravating factor that you waived an ADB, the one opportunity you had to show why you should be retained or discharged under honorable conditions. require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to indivi- The duals discharged by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08767-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9808767
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04078-00
action occurred on 30 June 1987 since administrative separation action was initiated on that same day due to your disciplinary actions, and other than the NJP of that day, the most recent such action was in January 1987, Additionally, it seems clear that some sort of disciplinary more than five months earlier. Point of contact is Mr. NAVMC re&est for removal 118(12) page 12 entries Director Manpower Management Information Systems Division 3 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02901-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2002. 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. paygrade E-2, and correctional On 5 October 1979, while in a UA status, The punishment imposed was a $115 The punishment imposed was a $400 Your record further...
USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01223
MD99-01223 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 930422: Not recommended for promotion to CPL because of lack of professionalism, self-discipline, judgement.