DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

NAVY 

ANNEX

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

S

WMP
Docket No. 4812-02
11 September 2002

From:
To:

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy

AVAL RECORD OF

Ref:
Encl:

(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
(1) Case Summary
(2) Subject's naval record

changes in his characterization of service

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,
and reenlistment code.
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
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

Documentary material considered by

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 best
interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and
review the application on its merits.

c.Petitioner  enlisted in the Delay Entry Program of the

Naval Reserve on 3 February 1986.
At that time, he admitted that
prior to enlistment he had paid a fine for hunting out of season.
He denied any other pre-service civil involvement.

d. Petitioner 

efilisted  in the Navy on 2 April 1986 at

age 18.
the Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command (CNMPC) that

On 2 June 1986, Recruit Training Center (RTC) advised

Petitioner had failed to fully disclose his prior involvement
This involvement included two months in
with civil authorities.
a divisional youth program for a burglary, an incident in which
he was held but not charged concerning a burglary, and one year
of unsupervised probation on a charge of accessory to stealing
gasoline.
alleged that his recruiter told him not to reveal this 
service involvement.

At that the time of the investigation, Petitioner
pre-

e.The commanding officer then opined that further separation
processing was not in the best interest of the Naval service, and
stated that Petitioner would be transferred to his next duty
However, on 1 July
station upon completion of recruit training.
1986, CNMPC directed separation processing by reason of
fraudulent enlistment.

f.Petitioner reported for duty on board the USS DETROIT on

10 September 1986 and was subsequently advanced to seaman
apprentice (E-2).
On 25 December 1986, CNMPC requested the
status of the separation processing directed on 1 July 1986.
CO of the DETROIT responded that when Petitioner reported on
board, the RTC letter of 2 June 1986 was in his service record,
but the ship was unaware of 
separation.
absence (UA) since 18 December 1986.

The CO noted that he had been on unauthorized

NMPC's directive to process him for

The

g.On 28 January 1987 Petitioner received nonjudicial

punishment (NJP) for three periods of UA totaling about 23 days,
11-12 January and 19-25
from 18 December 1986 to 4 January 1987,
January 1987; absence from his appointed place of duty; missing
ship's movement; and disobedience.
paygrade E-l, forfeitures of $350 per month for two
reduction to 
On the same
months, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.
day as Petitioner's NJP, CNMPC directed that he be processed for
separation by reason of defective enlistment due to fraudulent
entry and misconduct as appropriate.

Punishment imposed was was

h.On 11 February 1987 Petitioner was notified that

administrative separation action was being initiated by reason of
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and fraudulent
entry.
He was advised of his procedural rights and that if
discharge was approved,
Petitioner declined to consult with counsel and
conditions.
waived his right to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
Thereafter, the commanding officer recommended discharge under
On 25 February 1987, CNMPC
other than honorable conditions.
directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
Petitioner was so discharged on 3 March 1987.

it could be under other than honorable

.

i. On 10 April 2002 the Board initially considered and denied

Petitioner's request for a change in the characterization of his
service.

j. In May 2002, through counsel, Petitioner requested that

In support of that request,

the Board reconsider his case.
counsel presented a legal brief and numerous statements,
including one from a detective which casts doubt on the validity
of the pre-service civil charges that ultimately resulted in
administrative separation processing.
evidence to indicate whether the Commander, Navy Recruiting
Command investigated Petitioner's allegation that he informed his
recruiter concerning all of his pre-service civil involvement.
k. Along with his application, Petitioner has submitted

evidence of good post-service conduct, including successful
However, the
completion of college courses in law enforcement.
characterization of his service prevents him from working in that
field in his home state.

Additionally, there was no

However, available records, including the

CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
After reviewing the relevant evidence of record and new
information concerning Petitioner's pre-service civil
involvement, the Board believes that Petitioner was processed for
administrative separation directly as a result of his pre-service
civil involvement.
cast some doubt on the veracity and
statement of the detective,
Further, it appears there was no
seriousness of these charges.
investigation of recruiter malpractice to determine if Petitioner
pre-
did inform recruiting personnel of this existence of his 
The Board also questions whether he
service civil involvement.
would have been processed for administrative separation due to
commission of a serious offense solely based on the one NJP. In
this regard, the Board is aware that such processing was proper
but believes that he might
under the regulations then in effect,
Taking all of the foregoing into
have been given another chance.
consideration, the Board believes that although Petitioner was
appropriately processed for separation, the other than honorable
discharge was unduly harsh and should be changed to a general
discharge.
However, regulations require the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code when a servicemember is discharged by reason of
misconduct.
the reenlistment code is warranted.

Accordingly, the Board concludes that no change in

.

3

In view of the foregoing,
injustice warranting the following corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION:

the Board finds the existence of an

a.

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that

On 3 March 1987 he received a general discharge vice the other
than honorable discharge actually issued.

b.

C .

That no further relief be granted.
That any material or entries inconsistent with or

relating to the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such
entries or material be added to the record in the future.

C .

That any material directed to be removed from

Petitioner's naval record be returned to the Board, together with
a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.

It is certified that a quorum was present

4.
review and deliberations,
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.

and that the foregoing is a true and

  at the Board's

Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
5.
(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 provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority of reference (a),
has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Acting Recorder

-4’bJA~_~
wx 

w. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

4