DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0 TRG

Docket No: 8262-01
2 January 2002

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

CORD OF

(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

(1) Case Summary
(2) Subject's naval record

From:
To:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a

1.
former enlisted member of the Naval Reserve filed an application
with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show
an honorable discharge and an RE-1 reenlistment code.

The Board, consisting of Mr. Pfeiffer, Mr. 

2.
Whitener, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 18 December 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record.
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Documentary material

McPartlin  and Mr.

The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining

3.
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as
follows:

a.

Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all

administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b.

Petitioner's application was filed in a timely manner.

C .

Petitioner enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 22 November

1996 and, on 25 November 1996, he reported for four years of
active duty in the Training and Administration of the Reserves
(TAR) program.
July 1997, he was advanced to SK3 (E-4).
advanced to SK2 (E-5).

After he satisfactorily completed training, on 25

Subsequently, he was

d.

On 3 August 1998 Petitioner reported to Mobile Inshore

Undersea Warfare Unit (MIUWU) 203.
for the period 3 August 1998 to 15 March 1999 his individual
trait average was 3.43 and he was recommended for advancement and
The performance evaluation for the period
retention in the Navy.
16 March 1999 to 15 March 2000 he was marked as "progressing"
towards advancement and was not recommended for retention in the

In the performance evaluation

Navy.

e.

The next performance evaluation for the period 16 March
2000 to 24 November 2000 is not filed in the record but has been
The evaluation is adverse and he was
submitted by Petitioner.
The evaluation
not recommended for advancement or retention.
comments state, in part, as follows:

. 

. (He) has continued his downward spiral. His

. 
performance has been unsatisfactory during this period.
His lack of respect for superior officers and superior
petty officers has been noted on several occasions.
His overall performance reflects that of an E-l who has
not received proper training rather than that of a
Second Class Petty Officer.
during April of this period on a variety of charges,
and was subsequently sent TEMDU to the TPU in Groton,
CT to await ADMIN DISCHARGE BOARD.
November 2000 and awarded him a general discharge and
did not recommend retention in the Navy.

He refused Captain's Mast

The Board met on 17

The performance evaluation Petitioner received from the TEMDU
command, for the period 24 April to 24 November 2000, is also not
filed in the record, but is completely satisfactory and he was
recommended for retention in the Navy.
discharge on 25 November 2000 due to completion of required
At that time he was not recommended for
active service.
reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

He was issued a general

f.

When an individual is released from active duty at the

completion of required active service, he must receive an
honorable characterization of service if his overall traits
average,
higher.
requirement.

At the time of his separation, Petitioner met this

taken from all of his performance evaluation is 2.0 or

Q-

Petitioner filed a hotline complaint in May 2001

alleging that there were improprieties in the handling of his
case and that reprisals were taken against him after he reported
problems with the  
the investigation conducted into this matter, which sets forth
the facts and circumstances.
The investigating officer (IO)
concluded, in part, as follows:

Attached to enclosure (1) is

"EZ PASS system".

. 

. EZ PASS system suffered from a lack of supervisory

. 
control prior to being assigned to (Petitioner).
Assigning this to a junior sailor, whose performance
was questionable in the eyes of the Commanding Officer,
would portend future and continued problems with the EZ
PASS system  

- this turned out to be the case.

At no

2

point, was the Supply Department chain of command
involved in this process,
or in the administration of this process.
officer relieved of the EZ pass system to be the
primary investigator . . . .
with getting an impartial look at the system and fixing
the problem.
(Petitioner) was never found guilty of
any violation regarding the misuse or impropriety with
the EZ PASS system.

either in a supervisory role
Having the

appears to be in conflict

Concerning the administrative discharge processing, the IO found,
in part, as follows:

. 

(he) was sent TAD with 

. This is the area where the gravest injustice was

(Petitioner) was "offered" Captain's Mast for a

. 
done.
seemingly minor offense, failure to report, that is
normally corrected by counseling or in some other
manner, especially if this is a first time offense
(which it was) and the individual had been formally
(which [Petitioner] was not). When he
counseled . . .
refused Captain's Mast,
"no
cost" orders to NAVSUBASE Groton, CT.
Naval Region Northeast ruled on (Petitioner's) article
138 complaint that his assignment to Groton should have
to be on a cost basis, ordering restitution to (him)
for costs incurred while in Groton.
(The commanding,
officer) attempted every avenue possible in pursuing a
General Discharge for (Petitioner).
after notifying a sailor that he will be going before
an ADSEP Board is excessive and indicates that there is
not enough evidence to find guilt.
There were
this was the case regarding (Petitioner).
numerous problems with the conduct of the ADSEP Board,
which are covered in the working papers.
single fact was the findings of the board, however
flawed, were not upheld by Commander, Amphibious Group
TWO and as a result could not be used as the basis for
discharging (Petitioner) . . . . since the results were
not upheld, there was no basis for a General Discharge.

However, the

All indications are

(The) Commander,

Waiting six months

'Concerning command oversight and conduct, the IO found, in part,
as follows:

. 

. 

. After (Petitioner) refused Captain's Mast, he was

. 
sent from the MIUW at his own expense to NAVSUBASE,
Groton.
to discharge (him)  
. There were several protected
communications initiated by (Petitioner) during this
(The commanding officer) said he felt that
period.

Then a lengthy process of finding the vehicle

. . . 

3

"smoke screens" on the part of

these complaints were  
(Petitioner) to deflect attention from his performance
deficiencies.
(The commanding officer's) involvement
in the ADSEP board proceedings and subsequent discharge
process is disturbing.
A commanding officer cannot
ignore the basic leadership tenets of taking care of
his people, even when he is processing them for
discharge. . . . .

The IO concluded that reprisals were taken against Petitioner
after he made a protected communication.
honorable discharge and an RE-1 reenlistment code.

The IO recommended an

h.

On 8 November 2001, the Commander, Amphibious Group TWO

concurred with the findings of fact, conclusions and
recommendation of the IO and recommended that this Board
recharacterize Petitioner's service to honorable and change the
reenlistment code to RE-1.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
Petitioner was a very junior second class petty officer
with less than four years of active duty and believes that he may
have had difficulties in performing independent duty in an
acceptable manner.
the IO that reprisals were taken against him after he made
protected communications.
recommendation made by the Commander,
the record should be corrected to show an honorable
characterization of service and RE-1 reenlistment code.
he should have received such a characterization given his
satisfactory overall trait average.

Therefore, the Board agrees with the
Amphibious Group TWO that

However, the Board also notes the findings of

Clearly

Petitioner would have normally been released from active duty on
25 November 2000 vice being discharged since he still had a
remaining military obligation.
Therefore, Petitioner's record
should be corrected to show that he was released from active duty
on 25 November 2000 with his service characterized as honorable,
vice the general discharge actually issued on that date.
Although two adverse performance evaluations are normally
sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment
code, the evaluation from the TEMDU command, in which he was
recommended for retention,
the second adverse evaluation.
performance evaluation was based on actions that have been found
to be improper, it should be removed from the record upon the
request of Petitioner if it is filed in- the future.

covers essentially the same period as

Since the last adverse

Accordingly,

4

to.show that he was assigned
record should be further corrected  
an RE-1 reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of
record.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner's naval record  

be, corrected to show that
a.
he was released from active duty on 25 November 2001 with his
service characterized as honorable with an RE-1 reenlistment code
vice the general discharge and RE-4 reenlistment code now of
record.

That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to

b.
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,
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.

together with this Report

It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's

4.
review and deliberations,
and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.

‘,

/ 

i

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

ALAN E. GOLDSMITH  
Acting Recorder

L

Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section

5.
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
authority of reference (a),
has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the