DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
TRG
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100
Docket No: 6009-07
15 October 2008
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 7 October 2008. 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 were commissioned in the Marine Corps on 10 June 1988 and
served in an excellent manner for about eight years. During this
period you were promoted to captain. All though the date is
unavailable it appears that sometime in 1996 or early 1997 you
received nonjudicial punishment for adultery and sodomy. The
details of the offenses are not filed in your record.
Subsequently, a Board of Inquiry (BOI) found that the evidence
supported the allegation of misconduct and recommended a general
discharge. After review by the discharge authority, a general
discharge by reason of unacceptable conduct was directed and you
were so discharged on 3 July 1997.
In his brief, your counsel points out that there was a drinking
party on the beach with at least one female sailor involved.
Apparently someone took pictures during the festivities. Counsel
contends that the camera angle falsely suggested that there was
sexual activity on the beach and he believes that the Admiral
overreacted when he became aware of the pictures, He points out
that three of the eight officers present received nonjudicial
punishment. Finally counsel contends that you were advised to
plead guilty.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as excellent service prior
to the incident at issue and your claim of a successful civilian
career since discharge. The Board found that these factors and
contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your discharge given your nonjudicial punishment for a serious
offense. Although the record is incomplete and all of the
details are not available, it is clear that you were present
during the incident. Additionally the subsequent BOI reviewed
the facts and concluded that misconduct had occurred.
Accordingly, the Board found that there was a basis for the
imposition of NJP and discharge processing 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,
\pQoarg
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dil
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03872-01
On 5 October 1999, AO2(AW/SW) (Petitioner) (then a frocked Chief Petty Officer) called the house of a shipmate, EM3 (B). a verbal argument over the phone, which ended when ENFN (A) gave (Petitioner) the address to EM3 (B's) house. commanding officer at the NJP and that of the ADB.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09343-08
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, and notwithstanding the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The BOI recommended that you be separated with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions. As indicated above, you were notified by the Show Cause Authority -on 18 February 2005 that the BOI was not limited...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01004-06
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 Delayed Entry Program of the Naval Reserve on 22 July 1997 and incurred an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002984
He also requests a personal appearance before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous considerations of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2001052760, on 29 January 2002, and in Docket Number AR2002071052, on 26 August 2003. Concerning Military Police Report 05045-97-MPC338, I did not, in fact, render the probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03434-99
must be at least t3 Regular officers in the grade of O-6 (colonel) as members WOs, the members need not be Paragraph 2d(3) then specifies that at least one member of %nrestricted line officer and that the (BOI) shall be an "one member shall be in the same competitive category as the respondent competitive category does not contain officers in the paygrade of O-6 or above, an O-6 from a closely related designator shall be used . this statute had been repealed by the t#me of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03434-99
With regard to your contention that the BOI was improperly constitute~ because no member was a chief warrant officer in your competitive category of Personnel (MOS 170), the Board noted that subparagraph 2d(1) of SECNAVINST 1920.6k stated that in the cases of regular officers other than limited duty officers and warrant officers, the BOI members must be serving in paygrade 0—6. in your competitive category might have had some insight into the merits of these allegations not shared by the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06924-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 2009. 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 | CY2008 | 06710-08
On 18 May 2005, Petitioner's civilian defense counsel submitted a rebuttal and letter of deficiency to the Commandant of the Naval District Washington, which states in part, as follows: a memorandum for the Record prepared by [BOI member], clearly demonstrates, the members of [Petitioner's] BOI did not properly understand that they had the option of recommending that [Petitioner] be retained in the naval service despite their findings that he had been guilty of certain misconduct and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089940C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE : The IO finally found that the evidence did not show that the applicant was derelict in the performance of her duties.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00648-01
LTCOL E submitted a report of his investigation on 30 May 1986 and concluded that although MAJ S was disliked by many members of LTCOL E further found that HMM-364, he was a competent officer. On 17 December 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action was initiated against you for the following specifications of LTCOLs E and R, no disciplinary Documentation in the record indicates that on 1 He recommended charges be disrespect to a superior officer 3 disrespect, disobedience and dereliction...