Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09724-06
Original file (09724-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                                      2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
AEG:jdh
Docket No. 09724-06
8 November 2006


From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Commanding Officer
USS KITTY HAWK (CV-63)
FPO AP 96634-1770

Subj:    REQUEST FOR NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT DOCUMENTATION IN THE CASE OF CTA1 USN,

Ref:     (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

End:     (1) DD Form 149 w/attachment

1.       The Board has received a request for review of Subject’s nonjudicial punishment (NJP). The records disclose that you, or your predecessor in command, administered NJP to Subject.

2.       Following a preliminary review, it has been determined that the Board does not have all of the documentation concerning the imposition of the NJP. It is requested that the aforementioned documentation, together with any related material, be forwarded to the Board as expeditiously as possible in order that the review of Petitioner’s NJP may be completed. It appears that copies of the evidence used in imposing NJP, the summary of NJP proceedings and any documentation pertaining to an appeal would be especially helpful.

3.       The following is offered to assist you in locating the required material:

Date of NJP: 4 Aug 06
UCMJ Articles Violated: 92, 107, 134
Description of Offense: Disobedience, false official
• Statement, drunk and disorderly Conduct.

4.       In the event that the foregoing documentation is no longer maintained, a negative report to that effect is requested.

         5.       A copy of Subject’s application, is enclosed. It is requested that you address Subject.’s contentions, if those contentions are not addressed in the evidence of record.


AL AN E. GOLDSMITH
By direction


Subj:    APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF ADVERSE EVALUATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER (CPO) SELECTION
Officer. I was directly responsible for the training and readiness of all Cryptologic and Electronic Warfare assets.

 d.       Responsibility for the management of all cryptologic and all-source intelligence operations in USS VINCENNES and USS KITTY HAWK during my afloat assignments in the Forward Deployed Naval forces.
e.       Vital administrative support to twenty-five SCI facilities, ships and submarines while attached to Fleet Area Special Security Office, Western Pacific.
f.       A perfect score of 80 on the recent CPO advancement-in-rate examination, ranking me in the 99th percentile of all personnel in my rate and paygrade.
5.       My chain of command had advised me that readily accepting responsibility for all the charges in my case would probably help me receive a more favorable outcome. My belief in accepting total blame in exchange for clemency was misguided. In light of all the above factors, I respectfully request to at least have my selection to Chief Petty Officer and ultimately have the adverse evaluation removed from my military service record.

 6.       Thank you very much for your time and consideration. V e ry re s pectfully,

















4




 19 Oct 06
From:    CTA1(SW), USN,
To:      Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR)
Subj:    APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF ADVERSE EVALUATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER (CPO) SELECTION
 Ref:     (a)      SECNAVINST 5420.193
         (b)      BUPERSINST 1610.1OA, Navy Performance Evaluation
         (c)      BUPERSINST 1430.16E, Advancement Manual
         (d)      Navy Department Supplement to DOD 5l05.21-M-1
         (e)      DoD 5l05.21-M-l, SCI Admin Security Manual
         (f)      SECNAVINST 5510.30A, DON Personnel Security Program

 End:     (1) Affidavit, LT email of 10 Oct 06 and Security Access Eligibility Re port (SAER) ICO CTA1(SW)
(2)      Mount Elizabeth Hospital Clinical Summary
 (3)      Medical Report of 27 Jul 06
(4)      Evaluation Report & Counseling Record 06MAR02 to 06AUG09
 (5)      NAVPERS 1070/13
(6)      Leave and Earning Statement of 28 Sep 06
(7)      SOPA Guidance for Singapore Port Visit
 (8)      My Appeal ltr of 10 Aug 06
 (9)      NAVPERS 1336/3 (Special Requ est Authorization) for CTR1 , CTTI and myself
 (10)     05 Division LCPO ltr of 03 Oct 06
(11)     Assistant Special Security Officer ltr of 28 Sep 06
 (12)     CDR Memo of 02 Aug 06
 (13)     Report and Disposition of Offenses, NJP Brief Sheet and Suspect’s Rights Acknowledgment/Statement
(14)     Commander Carrier Strike Group Five ltr 5812 Ser Leg/334 of 6 Sep 06
(15)     Letters of Recommendation
1.       I am respectfully submitting subject request for your review per references (a) and (b).

 2.       I respectfully ask that you consider the following matters:

a.       Per enclosure (1), the affidavit states that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Agent assigned to USS KITTY HAWK committed perjury in a similar case to mine. It is my firm belief that the NCIS agent’s testimony strongly influenced the Commanding Officer’s decision to rescind my CPO selection by attacking my integrity. Because there was no Preliminary Investigative Officer (PlO) assigned to my NJP




Subj:    APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF ADVERSE EVALUATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER (CPO) SELECTION
proceedings, Violation of UCMJ Article 107 (false official statement) was entirely based on the evidence the agent submitted. Enclosure (1), the SAER submitted by the Commanding Officer clearly states that I was returned to the ship in an inebriated state. The NCIS agent took advantage of my incoherent condition, enclosures (2) and (3), and obtained a verbal statement that was subjected to his very critically written interpretation. The SAER will also confirm that I was not arrested and my injuries were a result of an assault. I never confirmed or made any false official statement or make any written statements. Enclosure (13) will also verify that I did not agree to waive my rights to remain silent.
b.       To this date, enclosure (4), contains inconsistent information regarding the status of my security clearance. I have not signed any documentation stating suspension of my Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access per references (d) through (f) and I am still working in my rating.
c.       The appealing authority used reference (c), paragraph 721, for justifying the Commanding Officer’s action for removing my recommendation for advancement, enclosure (5). The same reference also states that recommendation/advancement authority cannot be withheld or withdrawn on or after the effective date of advancement. Enclosure (6) will clearly show that I have been advanced to the pay-grade of E7.
d.       Violation of Article 92 is a lawful order that was issued by the appealing authority, per enclosure (7). I don’t believe that my attempt to prove the multiplicity of this charge against Article 134 (disorderly conduct, drunkenness) was given any serious consideration in my appeal, enclosure (8).
e.       The appealing authority per enclosure (7), has set specific standards of accountability for liberty buddies that fail to maintain the highest standards. My liberty buddies, enclosure (9), were not held to this standard; please see enclosure (10). This fact was addressed in my appeal.
f.       Equitable treatment. Special Security Files held onboard USS KITTY HAWK have documented incidents of personnel that have been involved in alcohol related incidents and have not faced punitive action or suspension of security clearance access, enclosure (11). I have first hand knowledge that another Petty Office Fist Class, in my division, was returned

2






Subj:    APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF ADVERSE EVALUATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER (CPO) SELECTION
to the USS KITTY HAWK drunk and disorderly during the same port visit in Singapore, enclosure (10). This individual’s punishment was a stern warning from the Command Master Chief and a NAVPERS 1070/613 withholding her selection to E7 until actually being paid. It is my belief that both cases should have received the same punishment for the same crime. This is the same belief of my chain of command as seen in enclosure (12). They recommended to hold my E7 selection vice withdraw
it.

 g.       Enclosures (13) and (14), are my NJP proceedings.
3.       I don’t believe that my entire fifteen years of sustained superior performance was taken into consideration upon my Non-judicial Punishment findings. My spouse and I are both active duty military and we love serving our country. I had a lapse of judgment but this one mistake shouldn’t ruin or stifle my career or my family’s future. Please allow me to continue to press full steam ahead with my career so I can become one of the Navy’s biggest advocates of Alcohol Awareness. I was always taught in the Navy that one wrong could wipe out 10 “attaboys,” but I have also learned that a lot can be achieved if the person who makes that one mistake is given a second chance.

4.       Sustain superior performance: I have been awarded the Senior Sailor of the Quarter/Month in my last four commands. I was runner up for Sailor of the Year onboard USS VINCENNES (CG 49) and Commander Submarine Group Seven (COMSUBGRU 7). My awards include five Navy & Marine Corps Achievement Medals and four Flag Letters of Commendation. I have continued to accept tough jobs that no one else would and I have always been praised for my dedication to duty and country. Additionally, my sustained superior performance includes, but is not limited to:

 a.       Four “Early Promote” recommendations in my last five Fitness Reports.
b.       Supervision of all Intelligence Department ratings while managing some of the Navy’s most sensitive programs for Commander Submarine Group Seven.




















Subj:    APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF ADVERSE EVALUATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER (CPO) SELECTION
Officer. I was directly responsible for the training and readiness of all Cryptologic and Electronic Warfare assets.

 d.       Responsibility for the management of all cryptologic and all-source intelligence operations in USS VINCENNES and USS KITTY HAWK during my afloat assignments in the Forward Deployed Naval forces.
e.       Vital administrative support to twenty-five SCI facilities, ships and submarines while attached to Fleet Area Special Security Office, Western Pacific.
f.       A perfect score of 80 on the recent CPO advancement-inrate examination, ranking me in the 99th percentile of all personnel in my rate and paygrade.
5.       My chain of command had advised me that readily

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600584

    Original file (ND0600584.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    *Third set of Performance and Behavior marks extracted from supporting documents submitted by the Applicant (page 1 only) Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). Pt stated that he has had suicidal thoughts since a kid but denied any plans or attempts. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500257

    Original file (ND0500257.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00257 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041129. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 040107: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense.040109: Commander, Carrier Group approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00540

    Original file (ND02-00540.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00540 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 911126 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00890

    Original file (MD00-00890.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).The applicant submitted no decisional issues. Further, the Board disagrees with the applicant’s statement, “My discharge was based on the fact that I could not be discharged “Hardship” and my family needed me.” The applicant’s discharge was based on his pattern of misconduct represented by two Non-judicial...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00133

    Original file (ND00-00133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I only ask that my discharge be upgraded to an "honorable" status. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :821012: Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.830818: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty, 0545-0600, 25Jul83. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 851031 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600276

    Original file (ND0600276.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214Letter to Applicant from Department of Veterans Affairs, dtd August 19, 2005 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20020130 - 20020505 COGActive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 20020506 Date of Discharge: 20040225 Length of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500682

    Original file (ND0500682.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Civilian counsel did not submit issues. directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern or misconduct PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20041003 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01349-06

    Original file (01349-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by NPC memorandum 1920, Ser 4834/031, 21 Jun 06 and NPC letter, 5420 POOJ6/1l3, 19 October 2006, a copy of each is attached. Members advanced under these procedures must be serving, in temporary officer status on the date enlisted advancement is effected.6. Accordingly,met both requirements in Aug 04, and his advancement to E—8 would have been effective 1 Jul 04.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501020

    Original file (ND0501020.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As evidence of my success, I received a degree and a commission. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 010525: Applicant commissioned as an Ensign in the United States Navy Reserve.020402: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 2300 on 020402.020404: Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0730 on 020404 (1 day).020421: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00763

    Original file (ND01-00763.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00763 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010507, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The 3 females were involved in an incident and we were brought before then, but they said we didn't have anything to do with it. The 3 females claimed they were Raped and when we all were in the security station 1 investigator MA1 C____ took a look at all of us and told us without the investigation even starting we...