DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
ANNEX
NAVY
2
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
WMP
Docket No. 3353-02
6 September 2002
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Encl:
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy
F NAVAL RECORD OF
(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Case Summary
(3) Subject's naval record
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Zsalman, Pfeiffer, and
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
1.
former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board
requesting, in effect, that his discharge be upgraded.
2.
Pauling, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 28 August 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
Documentary material considered by
available evidence of record.
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3.
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as
follows:
The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
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 Petitioner's application to the
Board was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of
justice to waiver the statute of limitations and review the
application on its merits.
Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 14 September 1987 at
He served without incident until 7 January 1992, when he
C .
age 18.
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for six instances of
Punishment imposed
failure to be at his appointed place of duty.
was a forfeiture of $100 per month for two months and a suspended
reduction to
paygrade E-3.
W
d.
At an alcohol dependency evaluation of 23 January 1992,
Petitioner was found to be alcohol dependent and recommended for
He began treatment on 1 April 1992.
level III alcohol treatment.
e.
On 13 April 1992, while attending level III alcohol
rehabilitation treatment, Petitioner received NJP for failure to
be at his appointed place of duty and disobeying a lawful order
Punishment imposed was forfeiture of $100
from a petty officer.
paygrade
E-
per month for two months and a suspended reduction to
2.
Prior to this NJP, the previously suspended punishment from
paygrade
the NJP of 7 January 1992 was vacated he was reduced to
E-3.
Further, Petitioner was notified on 30 April 1992 that his
level III alcohol treatment was being terminated, and he was
returned to his unit.
f.
Petitioner was notified on 2 June 1992 that
administrative separation action was being initiated by reason of
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and alcohol
rehabilitation failure.
He was advised of and retained all
procedural rights, acknowledged that he had a minimum of two
working days and a maximum of eight working days to return his
statement of awareness, and that failure to do so within the
specified period would constitute a waiver of his procedural
rights.
Petitioner elected an administrative discharge board,
but failed to return statement of awareness until 15 June 1992.
On that date, he was advised that he had waived his procedural
rights due to the untimely return of the statement of awareness.
g-
On 23 June 1992, the commanding officer forwarded a
recommendation for discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a
serious offense and alcohol rehabilitation failure to the Bureau
of Naval Personnel (BUPERS), which directed discharge on 1 August
1992.
h.
On 4 August 1992, Petitioner was offered in-patient
alcohol rehabilitation treatment at a Veterans Administration
(VA) hospital prior to his discharge.
treatment.
However, he declined this
i.
On 14 August 1992 Petitioner was discharged under other
than honorable conditions by reason of the commission of a
serious offense and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. At
that time, his conduct and proficiency averages of 3.57 and 3.56
respectively would have qualified him for an honorable discharge,
had he not been discharged due to misconduct.
2
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board now finds the existence of an injustice warranting
The Board believes that, although Petitioner
corrective action.
qualified for discharge due to the commission of a serious
offense and alcohol rehabilitation failure, the assignment of an
other than honorable discharge for his offenses was unduly harsh.
In this regard,
Petitioner served over four years of his six-year
enlistment,
Board also notes the minor nature of his first nonjudicial
punishment and the fact that his conduct and proficiency averages
would normally have qualified him for an honorable discharge.
Accordingly, the Board concludes that a general discharge is more
appropriate than an other than honorable discharge, concludes
that relief in the form of recharacterization is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
as extended without any instances of misconduct.
The
a.
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing
the record to show that he was issued a general discharge on 14
August 1992 vice the other than honorable discharge actually
issued on that date.
b.
That this Report of Proceedings be filed in
Petitioner's naval record.'
C .
That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs
be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the
Board on 5 April 2002.
4.
review and deliberations,
and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
ROBERT D. 'ZSALMAN
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
has been approved by the Board on
authority of reference (a),
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
--fQL3~ .a-a-_
F-
DEAN PFEIFFER
w.
Executive Director
4
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05254-02
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. She served without disciplinary incident c.Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 5 November 1991 for four years at age 19. until 30 April 1982, when she received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order. (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 it...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03943-99
Though Petitioner's BCNR case file does not establish Petitioner's actual notice of the current version of DOD Directive 1010.4, the fact Petitioner's rehabilitative potential was affirmatively considered and assessed prior to his discharge makes resolution of this issue unnecessary. Application to Petitioner's case. drug use was evidenced by a urinalysis for methamphetamine and Petitioner's further drug use following a second positive urinalysis in Petitioner's history of drug use and...
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00504
920323: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of alcohol abuse subsequent to inpatient treatment within the last 12 months. No indication of appeal in the record.920514: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1037 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting an upgrade of. His case was forwarded recommending that he be discharged under other than honorable (OTH) conditions. ,Petitioner’s request doe The-minority-member notes that Petitioner was separated for misconduct due to a commission of a serious offence.
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01119
ND04-01119 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040629. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. History of present illness: This 27 year old male, BM2 U.S. Navy with nine years and nine months of broken service, was admitted to ARD at Naval Hospital, Pensacola, on 26 November 1990 for inpatient alcohol rehabilitation.Discharged diagnosis: 1.)
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07515-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 February 2001. 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. general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a An ADB recommended you be issued a After consulting with legal However, the discharge authority...
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00511
No indication of appeal in the record.910412: USS HOLLAND (AS-32) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ and the civilian conviction during your current enlistment and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.910415: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01019
The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant’s first issue states: “Veteran was harassed by command when asked to see a JAG Lawyer Rep. Relief is not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states:...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001092
The Applicant was advised - in writing - that he was being considered for separation from the naval service based on allegations of:a) Misconduct - commission of a military offense or civilian office, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by confinement of six months or more; specifically,- Violation of Article 111 (Drunken operation of a motor vehicle, 2 separate specifications) - Violation of Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer) b) Substandard performance of duties,...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00109
My record of promotions showed I was generally a good service member. FIRST OFFENSE (Time in Service 2 years): After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issues 1 & 2: The applicant requested her discharge be upgraded to honorable based upon her observed and documented performance evaluations.