DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1004
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BIG
Docket No: 645-13
2a Qetober 2014
dear
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, gection 1552. Although your application was not filed in a
timely manner, the Boarg found it in the interest of justice to waive
the statute of limitations and consider your application on its
merits.
You requested removal of two charges (consensual sodomy and
solicitation to commit sodomy) of which you were convicted of at a
general court-martial (GCM), held on 21 May 1998, from your record.
You are advised that this Board does not have the authority to remove
charges of which you were convicted at a court-martial, but may review
your sentence for clemency.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28
October 2014. 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 medical corps in the Navy Reserve and
entered a period of active duty on 1 June 1996. In January 1998, you
were convicted in Superior Court in San Diego, California, of
kidnapping two male teenagers. On 21 May 1998, you were convicted at
a GCM of driving under the influence of alcohol, consensual sodomy
(oral sex) with a male enlisted Sailor, solicitation to commit sodomy
(oral sex) with a male enlisted Sailor, and fraternization with an
enlisted male Sailor (two instances). You were sentenced to a
dismissal, two years confinement, and forfeiture cf all pay and
allowances. On 2 June 1998, the Superior Court in San Diego,
California, sentenced you two 16 months confinement to run
concurrently with your military confinement for your kidnapping
GY appellate review, you received Lie
= aa ad Mae 7 Macrae DAA -_ fan
CcCOonviceacn. On TF Marcn avus, alLroL
dismissal.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and post service
good conduct. However, the Board concluded that the sentence at your
GCM was not overly harsh or deserving of clemency in light of the
serious nature of your offenses. You are advised that no discharge is
upgraded due merely to the passage of time or post service good
conduct. 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
within one year from the date of the Board’s decision. New evidence
ts evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its
decision in your case. 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 J. O'NEILL
Fxecutive Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021529
The applicant requests that the records of her husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected by upgrading his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). He stated he had not forced the victim into C____'s car or committed any assault upon her. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldiers overall record.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2003-097
In this regard he stated that Article 12.C.2 of the Personnel Manual provides that for enlisted members, active service in the Coast Guard is creditable toward retirement. After receiving notice of the CGCCA's decision, the applicant requested to be paid pay and allowances for the period spent on appellate leave, to be either reinstated or reenlisted on active duty, or in the alternative to be retired from active duty, with 20 years of service or with a 15-year retirement under TERA. ...
NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01328
ND97-01328 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970828, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The member will be advised that if he or she elects an administrative discharge board, nonjudicial punishments, courts-martial convictions and/or involvement(s) of a discreditable nature with civil authorities (when member is processed for this reason) occurring up to the announcement of the board’s findings and...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00409
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971113 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to civil conviction (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10472-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 July 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00185
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19960803 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to civil conviction (A). You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ afls14.jag.af.mil ”.The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05837 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 March 2012. Finally, members of the armed services who are convicted by civil authorities may be discharged for 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1000453
Furthermore, the NDRB reviewed MILPERSMAN section 1910-148, which provides details and guidance on administrative separations for homosexual misconduct, to determine whether the characterization of service was equitable based on the aforementioned misconduct and the Applicant’s totality of service during the enlistment period in which he was discharged. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052760C070420
The applicant requests, through counsel, that his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) be corrected to show he was not discharged but rather remained on active duty; that he was afforded early retirement with corresponding back pay and allowances as if he had not been discharged in 1998; that his discharge cite retirement as the narrative reason and contain no stigmatizing entry as to separation code, reentry code or in any other respect; that he receive such decorations as he would have...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00561-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 2010. Subsequently, your case was forwarded, and on 14 June 1994, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for an OTH discharge. “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.