DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
RDZ:ecb
Docket No. 06366-10
8 September 2010
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
TO: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER MIM Pectin
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.c. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149
(2) Subject's naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, applied
to this Board requesting that the other than honorable discharge
(OTH) issued to him on 23 June 1993 be upgraded.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs Garst, LaCroix and Spain, reviewed
Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 24 August 2010
and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective
action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of
record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to
Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice finds as follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations
within the Department of the Navy.
b. Petitioner's application to the Board was filed in a timely
manner.
c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 19 July 1990.
d. From July 1990 until May 1992 Petitioner had no disciplinary
infractions and with respect to his military duties he was described
as hardworking and conscientious. Unfortunately on 29 May 1992 he
was convicted by civil authorities of criminal trespass, a
misdemeanor. In sworn testimony before an administrative discharge
board (ADB) convened in May 1993 Petitioner admitted that he and
apparently another Sailor entered a private residence without proper
authorization. He was fined and placed on unsupervised probation.
e. After Petitioner’s civil conviction he reported to the personnel
support detachment (PSD) at Little Creek, Virginia to await transfer
back to his ship, USS IWO JIMO, that had deployed to the Adratic Sea.
Upon reporting to PSD Little Creek Petitioner was instructed to
proceed to the Hammond Hall transient facility at Little Creek.
Petitioner reported to Hammond Hall but @ue to some administrative
confusion he was not admitted to this facility. Petitioner then
proceeded to the PSD in Norfolk, Virginia. According to officials
at PSD Little Creek they had no knowledge of Petitioner’s whereabouts
until 18 September 1992. Eventually Petitioner was charged with
unauthorized absence (UA) from 20 July to 18 September 1992 since
he had not checked into Hammond Hall and then failed to keep officials
at Little Creek informed of his whereabouts which substantially
delayed his return to USS IWO JIMA.
f. On 28 October 1992 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment
for UA and was sentenced to forfeiture of pay and 60 days of
restriction. His commanding officer then referred this matter to
an ADB to determine if Petitioner should be retained in the Navy or
involuntarily discharged because of his UA. It was the
recommendation of the commanding officer that Petitioner be
separated with an OTH.
g. The ADB convened on 14 May 1993. During the course of these
proceedings Petitioner asked to be retained citing his excellent work
record and the mitigating circumstances surrounding his UA. In
regard to Petitioner's performance of duty two officers and one
noncommissioned officer for whom Petitioner had worked both before
and after his UA testified on his behalf. All three described
Petitioner as an exemplary worker who had no disciplinary problems
while aboard ship. The noncommissioned officer who was Petitioner’s
leading petty officer went so far as to say that Petitioner was worth
any two men that were then working for him. All three recommended
that Petitioner be returned to duty and given an opportunity to redeem
himself. Although the government never introduced any evidence to
rebut or cast doubt on the testimony of the three witnesses who
testified on Petitioner’s behalf the ADB voted to separate him from
the Navy with an OTH. Accordingly, Petitioner was so discharged on
23 June 1992.
h. Since his discharge Petitioner has conducted himself in a law
abiding manner.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board
concludes that the interests of justice would have been better served
had Petitioner’s OTH been suspended thereby allowing him to return
to duty to complete his enlistment with a better characterization
of service. The Board relies on Petitioner’s superior performance
of duty aboard ship, the extenuating circumstances surrounding his
UA and the fact that during his nearly first two years of service
he had no disciplinary infractions. The Board also takes into
account his post service conduct. Under these circumstances the
Board believes that clemency is warranted by upgrading Petitioner’s
discharge to general under honorable conditions.
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that 23 June
1993 he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions
in lieu of the other than honorable discharge originally issued on
that date.
b. That upon request, the Department of Veterans' Affairs be informed
that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 11 June
2016,
c. That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's
naval record.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review
and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete
record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.
Bp ES ei
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN BRIAN J. GEORGE
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e)
of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records
(32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6[e]), and having
assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that
the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of
reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the
Secretary of the Navy.
W. Na PFE
Executive Di r
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600742
As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07210-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, initially considered and denied your application on 22 July 2008. After the statements had been gathered an informal disciplinary review board consisting of senior noncommissioned officers examined the statements and conducted individual interviews of the seven Sailors who had accused you of sexual misconduct. Your commanding officer also testified before the ADB.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09991-02
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the PERSUPP DET (Personnel Support Detachment) Little Creek Virginia message 0813 15Z JUL 87, Subject: Rtn (return) Absentees ICO (in case of) Petitioner and. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Geisler, Pfeiffer and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00716
ND02-00716 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020425, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I told her that I had my entire leave papers because I had to have Limited Duty at PSD sign me out for leave because there was no one at the command that had the authority to do so. (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01023
ND02-01023 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020711, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.920710: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit from 920526 to 920615 (20 days/S); violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missed ship's movement on 920527. The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 02321 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2013. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your characterization of service, due to your misconduct. 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 | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501027
ND05-01027 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050601. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). During my absence (AWOL), a new Captain took over the “US S Fresno (LST-1182).” The old Captain was aware of the situation and he left no information or instruction to the new Captain as to what was going on in the ship’s office.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06979-00
in which his division officer, LT (G) upon returning ETCS (St.C) recalls an event on March 17, 1997 aboard USS SAIPAN from morning officers' call, informed him that the CSD division had been selected for urinalysis screening. that had the whatever division I am in. contention that CSF division was selected only because you were a However, every individual who testified member of that division.
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 | CY2006 | 00854-06
In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion dated 7 March 2006 from the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General, which addresses the issues of abandonment of rank and the validity of a charged offense. Specifically, reference (a) asks, “{d]id Ensign Eastburn’s use of obscenity during his phone conversation with Petitioner on 24 October 2003, constitute an abandonment of rank such that it Constituted a defense to the cha~ge of disrespect to an officer?” Additionally, reference (a)...