Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10282-06
Original file (10282-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                                             TRG
Docket No:1 0282- 0 6
         31 October 2007

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-me mb er panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2007. 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, regulation 5 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 26 October 2003 with about 16 years of active service from prior enlistments. At that time, you were a chief petty officer and were qualified as an independent duty corpsman. On 30 July 2004, YOU received nonjudicial punishment for dereliction in the performance of your duties when you used a prescription drug which was to be used by others, and making a false official statement concerning a prescription you had submitted, and absence from your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was a forfeiture of pay and 60 days restriction. Subsequently, your designation as an independent duty corpsman was removed.
On 19 January 2005, you were notified of separation processing by reason of misconduct. Subsequently, an administrative discharge board (ADB) found that you had committed misconduct, but recommended retention in the Navy with the stipulation that you never regain your designation as an independent duty corpsman. The commanding officer also recommended retention.
However, after review, the Navy Personnel Command recommended that the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN) approve a general discharge instead of retention in the Navy. On 28 June 2005 ASN directed a general discharge, you were SO discharged on 2 August 2005 and were not recommended for reenlistment. At that time, you were credited with 17 years, 9 months and 12 days of active service.
You contend in your application, in effect, that the offenses only occurred because you were upset due to your personal situation at the time, and that the offenses would not reoccur. Since your misconduct was isolated, you believe that the Navy Personnel Command should not have recommended discharge, and ASN should not have approved the recommendation given your record of good service, the recommendation of the ADB and your commanding officer for retention, and the fact that you were so close to qualifying for retirement.
The Board believed that it was proper to hold a senior Navy corpsman to a high standard of conduct and there was no abuse of discretion when the decision was made to direct discharge in your case. Therefore, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00282-06

    Original file (00282-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulation 5 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 26 October 2003 with about 16 years of active service from prior...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02844-08

    Original file (02844-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2008. In accordance with applicable Navy regulations your commanding officer transmitted the results of the ADB proceedings to the Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command (NMPC) urging that the ADB’s recommendation for retention be disapproved and that you be discharged, but because of the recommendation for retention, that you receive a general...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05628-11

    Original file (05628-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 2011. 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. In this regard the Board would like to point out that Sailors who abuse drugs, even if only once, are routinely issued: OTH'’s.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09936-06

    Original file (09936-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 2007. On 18 July 2006 the NPC advised your command that ASN had approved the recommendation. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04816-06

    Original file (04816-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 6 November 2003 at age 19. He pointed out that he was surprised when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07999-07

    Original file (07999-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 17 September 1980, you enlisted in the Navy at age 17 with parental consent with an enlistment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00572-08

    Original file (00572-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 September 2008. 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 | 07091-99

    Original file (07091-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his memorandum of that date, the SJA set forth Petitioner's record of service and noted that the CG could either approve the recommendation of the ADB and retain Petitioner or recommend to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner be discharged notwithstanding that recommendation. SECNAVINST administrative separations in the Navy and Marine Corps. Although Petitioner received NJP for violating SECNAVINST 5300.26B between 1 December 1997 and 31 January 1998, he could not, as a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08202-01

    Original file (08202-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was not t. In a brief attached to Petitioner's application, counsel makes the following contentions: 1910.4B; and the effect of an lectured, off the record, to change no- The provisions of the MILPERSMAN which state that a contest plea is tantamount to a conviction, and that any conviction is binding on an ADB, are without force and effect since those provisions are not set forth in Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) since that directive empowers the ADB to determine...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08398-06

    Original file (08398-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.3. At the time of the urinalysis he had stated that he had been given an unauthorized prescription drug by another Sailor on a drill weekend.e. Otherwise, there is no reason for an administrative discharge board to consider a case, and petitioners will surely opt for the informal exparte proceedings of this Board rather than the more demanding and...