Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05186-10
Original file (05186-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TUR
Docket No: 5186-10
9 July 2010

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your

naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 July 2010. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient

to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy at age 25 and began a period of active
duty on 6 July 2007. On 29 January 2009 you were transferred to
the Navy Operation Support Center, Tampa, Florida, for
humanitarian reasons. You served for two years without
disciplinary incident, but on 29 July 2009, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a one day period of unauthorized
absence. The following month, on 13 August 2009, you received
NIP for absence from your appointed place of duty and were
awarded a $1,168 forfeiture of pay and restriction for 30 days,
which was suspended for six months. Shortly thereafter, on

18 September 2009, you received your third NJP for absence from
your appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order.
The punishment imposed was a $1,568.70 forfeiture of pay, extra
duty for 90 days, and reduction to paygrade E-2. The forfeitures
were suspended for six months.
On 4 November 2009 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense. At that time you waived your right to consult
with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB). Subsequently, your commanding officer
recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Shortly
thereafter, the discharge authority approved this recommendation
and directed your commanding officer to issue you a general
discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 13 November 2009, you
were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire naval record and
application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating
factors, such as your desire to change your date of discharge so
that you would be eligible to receive an extended 180 days of
Tricare coverage for your diagnosed alcoholism and payment for
alcohol abuse in-patient rehabilitation. It further considered
the MacDill Air Force Base medical documents provided in support
of your request. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the
lack of material evidence in your naval record and the
seriousness of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in three
NJPs. Further, even if your naval record reflected alcohol abuse
at the time of your service, such abuse is not excusable for
misconduct and you were responsible for your actions which were
also sufficiently serious to warrant administrative separation.
Finally, Sailors separated by reason of misconduct normally
receive discharges under other than honorable conditions, and as
such the Board noted that you were fortunate to receive a general
discharge. Accordingly, your application has been denied.

The Board noted that your naval record does not contain any
evidence of alcohol abuse (medical screening, diagnoses, or
treatment) nor does it contain documentation which would justify
your commanding officer to be required to offer you appropriate
treatment for drug and/or alcohol dependency prior to separation.
In this regard, the Board concluded that there were numerous
procedural errors regarding your acceptance in an alcohol
rehabilitation program, such as the lack of documentation of your
treatment in your naval record, and keeping your chain-of-command
informed of your medical condition. As such, these actions
eventually resulted in compounded errors when you were referred
by MacDill Air Force Base for residential treatment and
subsequently started this treatment after you had been
administratively discharged from the Navy due to your misconduct,
and in the absence of referral authorization from your command.
Nevertheless, in regards to your supporting medical documentation
regarding your diagnosed alcohol dependency by MacDill Air Force
Base and the payment of the erroneously referred residential
treatment, the Board recommended you exhaust your administrative
remedies through the Air Force, possibly by seeking a waiver or
remission of indebtedness from the Air Force Board for Correction
of Military Records, or by obtaining Air Force Secretarial
Designee Status in accordance with their health care facility
policies. However, since the relief you request is not under the
purview of this Board, if your request is denied, you should
appeal that denial under the procedures established by and for
the Air Force.

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,

 

W. DEAN
Executive

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08387-08

    Original file (08387-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 December 1990, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction, commission of a serious offense, and drug abuse. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged the separation action and that it could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge, waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), and submitted a statement in which you stated in essence that withdrawal symptoms from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01318-09

    Original file (01318-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 Juiy 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. Shortly thereafter, on 10 January 1985, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03029-01

    Original file (03029-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The punishment imposed was a $286 forfeiture of pay, restriction for 30 days, extra duty for 45 days, and a reduction to On 14 December 1982, after undergoing a medical evaluation, medical authorities determined that you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04139-11

    Original file (04139-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2012. 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. You were diagnosed with alcohol dependency and recommended for continued treatment.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02464-08

    Original file (02464-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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 | CY1999 | 08244-98

    Original file (08244-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 September 1989 you were diagnosed with a severe borderline personality disorder which existed prior to enlistment (EPTE) and alcohol abuse. Further, the Board noted that even though you had been warned of Given an administrative separation, the Board concluded that your all the circumstances of your case, discharge, narrative reason for separation, and reenlistment code were proper and no change is warranted. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00061-01

    Original file (00061-01.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 June 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. thereafter, on 27 August 1980, you received NJP for possession of marijuana and were awarded a $500 forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty for 30 days. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08822-08

    Original file (08822-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 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 | 08042-08

    Original file (08042-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 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 | CY2002 | 03349-02

    Original file (03349-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. At that time you denied suicidal ideation On 19 February 1982, after undergoing a You were sentenced to a $900 forfeiture paygrade E-l. On 12 April 1982 you...