DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No:
29 October 2003
5039-03
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 21 October 2003.
Your allegations of error and
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.
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 enlisted in the Navy on 8 October 1985 with about four years
of prior service in the Marine Corps.
excellent manner for almost 16 years.
were advanced to senior chief petty officer (RPCS; E-8).
A special court-martial convened on 18 September 2001 and
convicted you, in accordance with your plea, of wrongful use of a
Department of Defense (DOD) travel card for the period 15
December 2000 to 27 May 2001,
and larceny of various items in the
amount of $9,000.
In accordance with the pretrial agreement, the
approved sentence of the court was a reduction in rate to petty
officer first class
You transferred to the Fleet
Reserve as an
YOU state in your application, in effect, that you were mentally
ill at the time you used the DOD credit card and attempted
suicide after you lost over $8,000 while gambling.
You allege
that you have paid off the debt and believe a reduction in rate
of two pay grades was unduly severe,
given the loss of income
over the remainder of your life.
one pay grade would have been an appropriate punishment.
You then served in an
On 16 September 2000, you
You contend that a reduction of
(RPl; E-6).
RPl on 31 October 2001.
Since
The Board believed that it was proper to hold a senior chief
petty officer to a high standard of conduct, and referral of the
charges to a court-martial was appropriate.
The Board also noted
that you pled guilty to the two charges, were sentenced to a
reduction of two pay grades in accordance with a plea bargain,
.and were then allowed to transfer to the Fleet Reserve.
the punishment could have been much more severe and you received
the Board concluded that your record
the benefit of your bargain,
should not be corrected to show that you were only reduced one
pay grade.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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.
The names and
Sincerely,
Executive D
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501430
ND05-01430 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050830. “The discharge was improper because I was coerced by my attorney to say I did steal money from the victim. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 – failure to obey general order, Article 121 – larceny of value more than $100, Article 91...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05500-00
AEl We reached this conclusion in part because (the CO) submitted a page 13 recording Run convictions and more importantly because (the CO) signed document recorded a second DUI for (the one first class petty officer who he knew had been selected as the Wing Sailor of the Year. mind" or Even (The CO) disregarded Navy policy in frocking (A) to Chief Petty Officer in view of his hit and run convictions. AEl (A)'s Page 13 dated 1 in his microfiche COMNAVAIRPAC take (M) , against...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07510-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 September 2002. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 29 October 2001 and 25 March 2002, copies of which are attached. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following: a.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07178-01
contended that the initial NJP, at which the commanding officer' referred the charges to a court-martial, imposed punishment and that the subsequent proceedings was double jeopardy. (His) case was originally referred to a summary The case was then Charges were . out, in effect, that your relief from maintenance duties and The commanding officer stated that he made it in the case of the junior He believed He also pointed 2 assignment to the training division was an administrative action and...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501311
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “MEDICAL.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. “Dear Chairperson: After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05850-01
A You were marked 3.0 ("meets The reporting senior noted The evaluation for the period ending 15 July 2000 showed you were now promotable and meeting standards in all categories. discharged from your second enlistment, you had not advanced Therefore, you met the criteria for reenlistment when For the first reenlistment, an However, at the time you were 2 Since you The Board found beyond E-3 and were not recommended for advancement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00218
Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000810. 930804: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04079-04
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.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 on 13 June 2001 as a petty officer second class (DK2; E-5). However,...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501362
I am asking again to please up-grade my discharge. Date of offense: 991012.000118: Applicant to pretrial confinement.000204: Charges preferred for Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 81:Specification: In that Seaman Apprentice L_ NMN B_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, Naval Station Bremerton, Bremerton, Washington, on active duty, did, at or near Naval Station Bremerton, Bremerton, Washington, on or about 6 January 2000, conspire with a unnamed person to commit an offense under the Uniform Code...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05717-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 4 April 2000 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for one day of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction for two months and a forfeiture of $2,556, all of which was suspended for six months. ...