Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01651-00
Original file (01651-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

TRG
Docket No:  
21 February   2002

1651-00

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 13 February 2002.
injustice were 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.

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.

You reenlisted in the Navy for six years on 8 December 1994. At
that time you had completed about six years of active service on
prior enlistments.
The record shows that you served without any
disciplinary infractions until 19 August 1998.
On that date you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for four instances of using
indecent language, two instances of indecent assault and
solicitation to, commit sodomy.
The punishment imposed included
forfeitures of pay and a reduction in rate from YN2 (E-5) to YN3
(E-4).

Subsequently, your appeal of the NJP was denied.

At that time, you elected to waive your right to have

Based on the misconduct, you were processed for an administrative
discharge for commission of a serious offense and homosexual
conduct.
your case heard by an administrative discharge board.
September 1998, the discharge authority approved the
recommendation of your commanding officer that you be discharged
for misconduct with a discharge under other than honorable
However, on 18 September 1998 the discharge
conditions.
directive was rescinded because of your claim that you had
blindly waived your rights because of emotional stress.
discharge authority directed that you be given an opportunity to

On 15

The

request an administrative discharge board (ADB).

On 28 January 1999, the ADB unanimously found that a
preponderance of the evidence supported a finding of guilt on
four charges, found that you were guilty of another charge by a
The
two to one vote, and found you not guilty on two charges.
ADB unanimously recommended discharge under other than honorable
conditions.

On 5 March 1999, your defense counsel submitted a letter of
deficiency and contended that your initial waiver of rights was
improperly allowed in evidence and you were stigmatized as a
malcontent by testimony concerning your intent to file an equal
opportunity complaint and contact your congressman.
Counsel
further contended that the ADB erred in allowing a witness to
testify on the ultimate issue of misconduct, and its findings
were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
requested that the  
for discharge be set aside,

Counsel
ADB's finding of misconduct and recommendation

or that you receive a new ADB.

On 11 August 1999, the commanding officer recommended discharge
stating, in part, as follows:

. 

. 

. After a 15 hour (ADB), and after hearing from 6

. 
government witnesses and 6 defense witnesses, the (ADB)
determined that the respondent committed five separate
serious offenses, each involving improper homosexual
conduct on board either a military installation or a
Naval vessel.
he be separated with an Other Than Honorable Discharge.

The (ADB) unanimously recommended that

After review of the arguments made in the letter
I determined that the issues raised

(of-deficiency),
did not adversely impact (his) rights, nor did that
adversely impact the outcome of the (ADB).

The commanding officer noted your exemplary performance for
almost eight months after the ADB,
and recommended a general
discharge instead of the discharge under other than honorable
conditions recommended by the ADB.
Naval Personnel, a general discharge by reason of misconduct was
directed.

You were so discharged on 1 November 1999.

After review in the Bureau of

You essentially contend that you were improperly discharged

In your application you are requesting, in effect, a change in
the reason for your discharge so that you can receive separation
pay-
for misconduct based
deficiency.
The Board considered the letter of deficiency but concluded that
even if was improper to admit the disputed testimony opining that

on the issues raised in the letter of

2

In this regard, the

the senior member characterized them

you were guilty, this error was harmless.
Board noted that the ADB members heard all the testimony and
found you guilty by a preponderance of the evidence of some
Therefore, it appears that
charges, but not guilty of others.
the ADB members performed their duty to evaluate the evidence in
a conscientious manner and that they were not influenced by the
The Board further noted that the senior
disputed testimony.
member essentially stated that your election of an ADB after,
initially waiving this right,
would not be held against you.
Concerning your grievances,
as "background and side issues", and that the central
determination would be whether you committed misconduct.
The
Board further decided that the determination of the ADB that you
did commit misconduct was reasonable and should not be
overturned.
reason of misconduct was proper as issued and no change is
warranted.

The Board concluded that the general discharge by

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

The names and

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

3



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 | CY2002 | 08202-01

    Original file (08202-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was not t. In a brief attached to Petitioner's application, counsel makes the following contentions: 1910.4B; and the effect of an lectured, off the record, to change no- The provisions of the MILPERSMAN which state that a contest plea is tantamount to a conviction, and that any conviction is binding on an ADB, are without force and effect since those provisions are not set forth in Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) since that directive empowers the ADB to determine...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02500-98

    Original file (02500-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2500-98 14 April 1999 Dears This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United \ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. also married with two daughters, ages 18...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08713-98

    Original file (08713-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The drug laboratory reported on 23 December received.nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 9 February 1998 for You use of cocaine. However, the commanding officer denied your request, noting that the reduction was the result of NJP and the action of the ADB did not overturn a judicial proceeding. 2 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07210-10

    Original file (07210-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, initially considered and denied your application on 22 July 2008. After the statements had been gathered an informal disciplinary review board consisting of senior noncommissioned officers examined the statements and conducted individual interviews of the seven Sailors who had accused you of sexual misconduct. Your commanding officer also testified before the ADB.

  • 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 | CY2005 | 08967-05

    Original file (08967-05.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his endorsement on your appeal CSG2 analyzed the evidence concerning the charge of indecent assault and stated that he believed a preponderance of the evidence supported his finding of guilty. He conceded that the evaluation at issue was erroneously prepared and indicated that action would be taken to file a corrected evaluation but strongly recommended that your application for advancement to chief petty officer be denied. The opinion concluded by stating that given the no misconduct...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11377-09

    Original file (11377-09.pdf) 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. On 25 April 2000 an administrative discharge board (ADB) recommended that you be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of homosexuality, with the execution of the discharge suspended for 12 months in order to serve sufficient time for retirement. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00307

    Original file (ND01-00307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00307 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010117, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 990203: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, and committed homosexual conduct by engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act as evidenced by nonjudicial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8234 13

    Original file (NR8234 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You waived your procedural right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). However, the Board concluded that your application should be denied in light of the aggravating circumstances of your committing an indecent act for indirect compensation and other serious misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden 4s on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error ofr injustice.