DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TAL
Docket No: 4166-14
30 July 2015
a
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.
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of
limitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
Sitting in executive session, considered your application. 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 17 September 1985. About 10 months later, on 5 July
1987, you were the subject of an automobile accident. Your
record reflects that you were driving while fatigued and under
the influenced of alcohol, speeding, and engaging in erratic
driving (e.g., illegally passing in a no-passing zone on a hill
and in the curve of the road, and not wearing a seat belt), when
your automobile ran “head on” into a 9-ton truck. The record
also reflects that because the foregoing misconduct was
intentional or due to willful neglect, you were not eligible to
receive disability benefits. Subsequently, a physical review
counsel determined that your disabilities were not ratable due to
your own misconduct and gross willful neglect.
On 12 December 1989, you were convicted by general court-martial
(GCM) of two specifications of wrongful possession, distribution,
and, use of methamphetamine. You were sentenced to confinement
for 15 months, a $5,250 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade
E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Subsequently, the BCD
was approved at all levels of review, and on 25 October 1991, you
were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade and/or change your discharge to reflect a
“medical retirement” status and change the record to reflect that
your automobile accident “injuries occurred while you were ina
lines GE duty.” Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the
seriousness of your alcohol and drug related misconduct. The
Board determined that the severity of your drug and alcohol
abuse, intentional misconduct, and willful neglect outweighed the
mitigation of your desire to change your discharge. The Board
also determined that there was no error in your record in regards
to your injuries occurring while you were “not” in the line of
duty. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, be advised that
Board regulations state that personal appearances before the
Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board
determines that such an appearance will serve some useful
purpose. In your case, the Board determined that a personal
appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on
the evidence of record.
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
within one year from the date of the Board’s decision. 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
Executive Director
Probably the most important evidence is the police report, which states the roads were wet and that applicant’s car hit the other vehicle prior to reaching Pierce Road intersection. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force opinions and contends that the entire thrust of this application is to show that the LOD IO did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04100060C070208
Counsel states that another witness, SSG V, was interviewed but that the line of duty investigating officer “only touched on the issue of the gold sedan when he interviewed” SSG V. He notes that in SSG V’s sworn statement he related that he was told by Mr. F at the scene of the accident about the involvement of the “gold sedan” in this motor vehicle accident, and thereby corroborated Mr. F’s statement regarding the fact that the woman in the gold car “was speeding so he [applicant] wouldn’t...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019041
The applicant states: * the LOD investigation (LODI) was initiated on 8 May 1987, while he was on active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program * he was initially charged with negligent homicide, but the charges were dropped based on his blood alcohol level being .03 grams per 100 milliliters (MLS) * prior to his release, he had not reviewed his military record and was unaware of any changes and thought the LOD was taken care of * the accident occurred on 8 May 1987 and he last saw...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009636
The actual helmet was severely damaged and the chin strap was torn; c. she was told by hospital personnel that the FSM would not have survived the accident if he had not been wearing a helmet; d. the toxicology report finding differs from the reported blood alcohol content (BAC) level on the LOD and the method of determining the alcohol level did not meet the Texas legal standards for a finding of DWI; e. a formal LOD was not required and she did not receive a copy of the LOD until over a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019155
In a supplemental report, the police officer stated that based on the nature of the FSM's reported injuries and his earlier review of the accident scene, it was his opinion that the ATV had rolled over the FSM after he had been dismounted from it on the roadway, thereby causing the fatal injuries. Appendix B, Rule 8 states any injury or death caused by a Soldier driving a vehicle when in an unfit condition of which the Soldier was, or should have been aware, is not in line of duty. A...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017024
The applicants, the parents of a deceased former service member (FSM), request correction of the FSM's record to show: * on the DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation - Line of Duty and Misconduct Status), dated 11 March 2009, the FSM's death was "in line of duty" instead of "not in line of duty - due to own misconduct" * The FSM's promotion to first lieutenant (1LT), effective 26 November 2008 2. The IO's approved findings of the LOD investigation show a finding of "Not in the Line of Duty -...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02426
The investigating officer concluded that the applicant’s injuries were NLOD due to applicant’s own misconduct. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied. However, after a thorough review of the available evidence of record and the AFPC/JA opinion, we believe the applicant’s LOD was properly evaluated under the appropriate Air Force regulations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050013874C070206
The applicant also states that "[a] VA administrative decision determined the accident was not the result of "willful misconduct" and granted the accident "in line of duty". Paragraph 39-5 (Standards applicable to LOD determinations) of the LODI regulation provides, in pertinent part, "[i]njury or disease proximately caused by the member's intentional misconduct or willful negligence is "Not in L[O]D - due to own misconduct"." In fact, the evidence of record shows that the VA did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020559
The applicant states: * the investigating officer (IO) did not conduct a thorough investigation into the FSM's death * it appears the IO made his decision based on hearsay information told to the police officer at the scene of the accident * the IO stated in his findings that there was no toxicology examination and that is incorrect; additionally, the IO stated he did not interview any witnesses * the police report did not say alcohol was a factor in the accident's cause 3. In this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079581C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Formal line of duty investigations must be conducted for injuries or death involving the abuse of alcohol or other drugs. The applicant’s blood alcohol level was sufficient evidence, which would serve as a basis to establish “a degree of certainty that a reasonable person” would be convinced that the applicant’s automobile accident and subsequent injuries were the result...