DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVYANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
RDZ:jdh
Docket No. 05384-03
28 August 2003
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 27 August 2003.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
Your allegations of error and
You reenlisted in the Navy on August 1, 1997, for a term of four
years.
Your records shows that you had previously served on
active duty from August of 1993 to July of 1997 for which you
received an honorable discharge.
On June 8, 1998 you received
nonjudicial punishment for willfully disobeying a petty officer
and were awarded seven days of extra duty and a suspended
reduction to
were charged with being insubordinate to a superior petty
officer and failure to obey a lawful order.
these charges your suspended reduction was vacated. Rather than
refer these charges to trial by court-martial your command
informed you that it intended to recommend that you be
administratively separated with a general discharge (under
honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct to the commission
of a serious offense.
After conferring with lawyer counsel you
chose to accept the command's recommendation by waiving your
Approximately three months later you
paygrade E-3.
As a result of
right to an administrative discharge board.
general discharge on November 16, 1998.
You received the
The Board concluded you were indeed fortunate that you were not
tried by court-martial for your later misconduct which could
have ultimately resulted in a less favorable discharge than the
one you now possess. Considering the seriousness of the charges
and your willingness to accept a general discharge, the Board
could find no basis to grant your request.
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.
Accordingly, your application has been
votes of the members of the panel will
request.
denied.
be furnished upon
The names and
It is regretted that the circumstances
that favorable action cannot be taken.
the Board reconsider its decision upon
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board.
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.
of your case are such
You are entitled to have
submission of new and
In this regard,
Sincerely,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06890-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The following day, your counsel responded that any Your counsel On 23 February 1998, the secretarial designee directed that your records be corrected to show that you were involuntarily discharged on 13 December 1995 by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10639-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction oE Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2003. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03392-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2002. The members of the chain of command were present, made statements and were available to answer questions . He then told LT HI who then called Ms. D. The Board also considered the statement of the retired chief petty officer who stated that you were not derelict in your duties while you were treating him and that he did not see any disrespect.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06328-00
He stated that although your enlistment would expire You were discharged In In your application you are appealing the reductions in rate from ET2 to ETSN. The Board noted that the discharge processing accordance with regulations and you did not contest the discharge by requesting an administrative discharge board. concluded that you were fortunate to have an honorable discharge since a general discharge was directed.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06211-08
On 16 July 1998 your commanding officer recommended that you be separated from the Navy with a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 28 July 1998 you received a general discharge. The Board carefully considered your contentions to the effect that you were to receive a medical discharge, and that you were unfairly targeted because of your “status...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02397-01
The charges were referred to On 15 April 1999 you submitted a request for an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial on the foregoing charges. the good of the service is an administrative discharge and is foregoing contentions and claims recharacterization of your discharge you accepted discharge rather than The Board noted that discharge for 2 Furthermore, you requested guiltto the charges, and your rarely under honorable conditions. ...
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...
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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_17_36 CDT 2000
Further, other individuals stated that you did not notify the command until the third duty day after the arrest. You contend that the arrest was reported on the first day back to work; you were directed not to have any contact with anyone on board the submarine, and therefore could not obtain any witnesses; the executive officer threatened further adverse action if you appealed the NJP; and you were told that you would receive additional alcohol rehabilitation prior to discharge. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00260-00
investigation the this allegation of religious discrimination against (Petitioner) by his chain of command . his,request for Courts- Thus, (Petitioner) does not have a . the same degree of assistance in preparing his mitigation request as did Further, it does appear that he did make some efforts to do more than was absolutely required in the normal performance of his duties, Petitioner's actions.