DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

CRS
Docket No: 9201-07
2 May 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 16 April 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,

The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 8 August 1989.
You underwent psychiatric evaluation on 3 December 1991, and were
given diagnoses of drug and alcohol abuse, an eating disorder,
and a personality disorder. On 12 February 1992 you received
nonjudicial punishment for use and possession of marijuana.

On 5 March 1992 your commanding officer recommended that you be
separated from the Navy with a discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
When informed of the recommendation, you waived the right to
present your case to an administrative discharge board. After
review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for
separation was approved and on 19 June 1992 you were separated
with a discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason

of misconduct.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your performance while in
the service, post service accomplishments and the contention that -
psychiatric problems impaired your ability to serve. The Board
concluded that those factors are insufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge, given your involvement with
drugs. In addition, there is no indication that you did not know
right from wrong and were unable to adhere to the right.
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,
ROBERT fa

Acting Executive Director
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

HD:hd
Docket No. 10295-07
5 May 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.

You requested restoration of your Navy Enlisted Classification
(NEC) code 5352 (special warfare boat operator (SB)) and
advancement to chief petty officer (CPO) (pay grade E-7) from
the Cycle 182 (January 2004) advancement examination and CPO

selection board.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your

application on 1 May 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. In addition, the Board considered the

advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC)
dated 31 January 2008 with enclosures and 24 March 2008, copies
of which are attached. The Board also considered your letter

dated 20 April 2008 with attachments.

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.

The Board was unable to find your NEC was removed as a punitive
measure. The Board recognized that your three fitness reports
from Special Boat Team 20, for 3 June to 15 November 2004, 16
November 2004 to 15 November 2005 and 16 November 2005 to 20
July 2006, reflected no substandard work performance. However,
the Board found enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion dated 31
January 2008 established a valid basis for your commanding
officer's (CO's) loss of confidence in your ability to perform
the duties required by the 5352 NEC, the misconduct for which
you received nonjudicial punishment, even if your work
performance was not substandard. The Board found that if you
are correct that a service record page 13 specifying the basis
for removing your NEC was not prepared, this would not be a
material error invalidating the removal. Finally, enclosure (2)
to the advisory opinion dated 31 January 2008 reflects that both
the NPC and the Enlisted Placement Management Center (EPMAC)
approved your CO's recommendation for revocation of your NEC.

The Board was unable to find your selection for advancement
would have been probable, had you been given an opportunity to
participate in the Cycle 182 (January 2004) advancement
examination and CPO selection board. ,In this regard, the Board
particularly noted that you have never been selected for

advancement to CPO.

In view of the above, 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,

(a)

W. DEAN P F
Executive

Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON, TN 38055-0000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5420
BUPERS-32
31 Jan 08
From: Head Enlisted Community Manager _ Se
— iL60; == executive Director, Hoard for Correction sf iS Records
Via: (1) BUPERS-3

Subj : -“ a a

 

 

  

Ref:

Encl: (1) NSWG-4 Enlisted Personnel Action Request
(2) EPMAC 1221/2 NEC Action Form

lL. Issue: . gilli iat iiss

ais Fseeking reinstatement of hig
Enlisted Classification (NEC)

Operator (SB) NEC 5352.

Navy
code for Special Warfare Boat

2. Background:

 

 

S additionally
Special Warfare Group FOUR, see
enclosure (1). The Commodor

e of NSWG-4 determined Nias
i, not suitable for any assignment within the n

—— ava
Special Warfare Community.

 
 

3. Recommendation: ij
confidence in member’s a
by the 5352 NEC. . Per reference (a)

 

  

quest for reinstatement
(SB) NEC 5352.

Tmd & fle fe

M. L. FAIR
BRUPERS - 328
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
COMMANDER NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE GROUP FOUR
2220 SCHOFIELD ROAD, SUITE 100
NORFOLK, VA 23521-2645

 

5863

Ser 004 #007
22 Jan 07

 

 

 

 

Ref: (a) MILPERSMAN 1220-340

Encl: (1) NAVPERS 1306/7

1. Per reference (a),

enclosure (1) is submitted with the
mmendation for disapproval.

  
  
 

  
   

nee ccountable for his actions
eading up to and during the incident that took place at the

Texas Steakhouse in Elizabethtown, KY on 2 June 2006. After

careful review of the Preliminary Investigation and the Police
, the facts corroborated both

Senior SWCC throughout t
Cclaimancy.

4. It is my final determination
Suitable for any assi

Community. Therefore

, I strongly recommend that his request be
disapproved.

Encl (1)
E. H. THOMPSON
Copy to:
CL .