DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

NAVY 

ANNEX

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

S

CRS
Docket No: 6339-01
27 February 2002

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.

27. February 2002.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting-in executive session, considered your
application on 
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.
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated
2001 , a copy of which is attached.

In addition, the Board considered the advisory

Your allegations of error and

  11 October

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.
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.

In this connection, the Board substantially

The Board noted that the language in the operational order does
not specifically state that recruits were to carry sports drink
and water.
However, it was clear to the Board that you were
briefed on this specific requirement on at least one occasion.
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

Enclosure

c

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

2 NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON, DC  

20380-1775

IN REPLY REFER TO

1070
JAM2/8

1 1 OCT 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

RECORDS

Subj:-

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS  
IN THE CASE 

OF< .

(BCNR)  APPLICATION  

v  USMC

'

We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner's request
il .
for the removal from his service record book (SRB) and official
military personnel file (OMPF) of all entries related to the
non-judicial punishment (NJP) he received on  

27

August 1998.

We recommend that Petit

2.
Our analysis follows:

3.

Background
-.

ioner's r-equest for

relief be denied.

a.

Petitioner,

a senior drill instructor, at Marine Corps
6 August 1998 failed to obey

on 

Parris  Island,

which resulted in the aggravation of a
Specifically,

Recruit Depot,  
the hydration orders of the commanding general and also the
commanding officer (CO)
recruit's heat injury.
order for hydration included carrying 1 canteen of sports drink
and 1 canteen of water during the "Crucible" event.
Additionally,
MRE salt in water for recruit consumption when a recruit began
to display early signs of a heat related illness.
nevertheless,
attention for a recruit who was suffering from heat distress,
decided to put MRE salt into the recruit's canteen, and had the
recruit consume'the water and continue the evolution.

the CO specifically told Petitioner never to put

rather than seek immediate proper medical

the commanding general's

Petitioner,

Petitioner's actions amplified the recruit's condition,

which led to hospitalization.

b.

C .

On  27 August 1998,

Petitioner received battalion level

NJP for two specification of failing to obey lawful orders in
violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ).
month.
the cognizant staff judge advocate and the appeal was ultimately

Petitioner was awarded forfeiture of $400.00 for 1
Petitioner appealed the NJP.

His appeal was reviewed by

Subj :

BOARD 

FOR  CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS  

(BCNR)  

APPLlCATION

s

denied
Marine

by the Commanding Officer,
Corps Recruit Depot,  

Parris  Island.

Recruit Training Regiment,

d.

Petitioner,

in his rebuttal statement to the

corresponding directed comment fitness reports,
that he violated the CO's
admits that he was wrong
that he did not aggravate

order to not add salt to the
to violate the order  
the injury.

freely

admits
water and

- he just contends

4.

Analysis

a.

No legal error occurred in the imposition of NJP.

Regarding the first specification,

appeals his punishment arguing that both

Petitioner, however,
specifications were unjust.
Petitioner claims that the NJP was unjust because he was unaware
of an order that required recruits under his charge to carry one
canteen of sports drink and one canteen of water.
second specification,
because the verbal order given to him by his commanding officer,
not to put salt in recruit canteens, conflicted with standard
operating procedures
follow the verbal order.
Petitioner also claims that  
putting salt in a recruit's canteen was unjust because of a
subsequent order,
military medical authority,
"waterbulls"

based on a recommendation by a competent

during later training evolutions.

(SOP) and therefore he was not obligated to
NJ!?  for

Petitioner claims that his NJP was unjust

to place salt in recruit

As for the

b.

Petitioner's claim that he was unaware of the order

given that the recruits under his charge were to carry one
canteen of sports drink and one canteen of water is without
merit.
Petitioner claims that the order was passed during  
command briefing where he was not present, and that neither the
SOP nor the operations order addressed the issue.
that Petitioner was not at the command briefing, his claim that
the issue is not addressed in the operations order is false.
Operation Order 2-98 (Company H Crucible Event 6-8 August 1998)
specifically states that,
sports drink per quart of water."
At a minimum, Petitioner
deliberately violated his company commander's written operation
order (Z-98) and therefore his NJP, as recorded in his 980827
NAVMAC 118-12  

(p-12)  SRB entry, is appropriate.

\\recruits  will consume one quart of

a

Even assuming

C .

Petitioner's claim that his NJP was unjust because a

verbal order given to him by his commanding officer, not to have

Subj:

BOARD FOR COR
IN THE CASE 

0

TION

or the previously published operations

recruits put salt in their canteens, conflicted with standard
operating procedures,
order is without merit.
previous operations orders addressed the issue of placing salt
in recruit canteens.
superior officer of competent military authority supersede
standard operating procedures and previously published
operations orders.
by his commanding officer and he failed to obey.

Petitioner was given a direct lawful order

Petitioner provides no evidence that

all verbal orders from a

Moreover,

d.

Petitioner's claim that he should be absolved of his

failing to obey his commander's order not to put salt in recruit
canteens because of a later order directing that a salt solution
be placed in recruit "waterbulls" is also without merit.
Military law does not provide relief for subordinates who
disobey current orders because the subordinate believes that
they have more complete information regarding, or a better
understanding of,
clearly illegal it must be obeyed.
case was undoubtedly a legal order.

Unless an order is
The order in Petitioner's

a particular situation.

Conclusion.

5.
recommend that the requested relief

No error occurred

in the imposit
be denied.

ion of NJP. We

-.

Head,
Judge Advocate Division

Military Law Branch