DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BJG
Docket No: 4419-12
17 September 2012
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: DD Form 149 dtd 29 Feb 12 w/attachments
HOMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 24 Apr 12
(1)
(2)
(3) HOMC JAM memo dtd 9 Apr 12
(4) Subject’s naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written
application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in
effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing the
fitness report for 1 June to 1 July 2011 (copy at Tab A) and the
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 1 July 2011 (copy of Unit
Punishment Book (UPB) entry at Tab B).
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. W. Hicks, Spooner and
Swarens, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 13 September 2012, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the limited 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 the Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. The Supplemental Page of the UPB entry includes the
following: “BLOCK 1 Art. [Article] 134 In that [Petitioner],
USMC, on active duty, did, at or near Kitsap County, WA, on or
about 3 Jun 11, recived [sic] a citation from the Washington
State Patrol, which conduct was prejudicial to good order and
discipline in the Armed Forces or of a nature to bring discredit
upon the armed forces.”
c. The last sentence of section I (reporting senior’s
“Directed and Additional Comments”) of the contested fitness
report reads as follows: “Directed Comment, Sect [ion] A, Item 6C
[sic]: SNM [Subject named Marine] was charged and found guilty
of Articles 111 and 134 in that SNM received a citation from
Washington State Patrol for operation of a vehicle under the
influence of alcohol; conduct that is prejudicial to good order
and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring
discredit upon the armed forces.”
d. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) commented to the
effect that the contested fitness report should stand.
e. In enclosure (3), the HQMC Judge Advocate Division
commented to the effect that the NJP at issue should stand, but
that the UPB entry should be amended to remove reference to the
Article 134 charge, as it fails to state an offense.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of enclosures (2) and (3), the Board finds
an error warranting the following limited corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by
removing the following from the Supplemental Page of the UPB
entry for the NJP of 1 July 2011:
BLOCK 1 Art. 134 In that [Petitioner], USMC,
on active duty, did, at or near Kitsap County,
WA, on or about 3 Jun 11, recived [sic] a
citation from the Washington State Patrol,
which conduct was prejudicial to good order and
discipline in the Armed Forces or of a nature
to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
b. That his record be corrected further by modifying as
follows the last sentence in Section I (reporting senior's
“Directed and Additional Comments”) of the fitness report for 1
bo
June to 1 gu 2011, dated 25 July 2011 and signed > ae
(1) Remove the “s” from the word “Articles.”
(2) Remove “and 134 in that SNM received a citation from
Washington State Patrol” and “; conduct that is
prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed
forces and of a nature that brings discredit upon the
armed forces”.
The sentence, as corrected, will read as follows: “Directed
Comment, Sect A, Item 6C: SNM was charged and found guilty of
Article 111 for operating a vehicle under the influence of
alcohol.”
c. That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such
entries or material be added to the record in the future.
d. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner's naval record be returned to the Board, together
with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
e, That the remainder of Petitioner’s request be denied.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) 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.
DUCT Aas J, Cera
ROBERT D. Z4SALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
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.
a W. DEAN 2 Ga
Executive Director
AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00137
The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s for misconduct--conduct prejudicial .o good order and discipline. Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AB) (HGH A1C) 1. Copies of the documents to be forwarded to the separation authority in support of this recommendation are attached.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01549
He be reinstated back into the Air Force, if the Board grants his requests. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of his request to remove the military justice actions from his records. The evidence in the applicants case is sufficient to find either prejudice to good order and discipline or discredit to the service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03051-08
__> DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SMS Docket No: 3051-08 2 October 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07838-10
JAMS stated that the NUP “stemmed from [Petitioner’s] failure to report a civilian DUI arrest,” however, the UPB entry actually says he was punished “for failing to notify his command of his DUI conviction [emphasis added] .” JAM5 noted that “the requirement to report the conviction (rather than the arrest) is lawful.” d. Enclosure (4) explains that PERB directed removing the contested fitness report in light of enclosure (3). e. In enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002187
The applicant requests removal of a DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period 23 June 2011 through 6 January 2012 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant provides: * Court Disposition Order CV13-00XX-XX * Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) Record of Proceedings and Appeal * Contested OER * Sworn statements * Memorandum for Record (Second Interview with Applicant) * Army Regulation (AR) 15-6...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005940
The applicant requests, in effect, all records of non-judicial punishment (NJP) be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), all records related to the suspension of his security clearance be removed from the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) and his Officer Record Brief (ORB), and reinstatement on active duty as an O-6. The evidence of record shows 32 CFR, Chapter 1, subsection 154.55c, states that whenever a determination is made to suspend a security clearance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017769
The applicant states his sexuality was used to determine his discharge. The applicant, a Regular Army sergeant (pay grade E-5) with approximately 6 1/2 years of active duty service, committed an offense for which he ultimately requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01412
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01412 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His non-judicial punishment (NJP), received on 16 Sep 13, under Article 15 be removed from his military record. The applicants discharge case went to the SAFPC for review and decision as to whether or not to administratively discharge the applicant or allow him to be permanently retired.
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01107
ND04-01107 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040629. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Board determined that the facts of the Applicant’s conduct did not constitute the offense under the UCMJ for which the Applicant was separated in lieu of a court-martial.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00319-11
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing two Article 134 offenses listed on his unit punishment book (UPB) as a result of nonjudicial punishment (NUP) he received on 20 August 2009. e. An advisory opinion received from the Marine Corps regarding Petitioner’s request to remove the two Article 134 offenses recommended partial relief. That any...