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

					 TRG
                       Docket No:10282-06
	 31 October 2007

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 section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2007. 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, regulation5 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 26 October 2003 with about 16 years of active service from prior enlistments. At that time, you were a chief petty officer and were qualified as an independent duty corpsman. On 30 July 2004, YOU received nonjudicial punishment for dereliction in the performance of your duties when you used a prescription drug which was to be used by others, and making a false official statement concerning a prescription you had submitted, and absence from your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was a forfeiture of pay and 60 days restriction. Subsequently, your designation as an independent duty corpsman was removed.

On 19 January 2005, you were notified of separation processing by reason of misconduct. Subsequently, an administrative discharge board (ADB) found that you had committed misconduct, but recommended retention in the Navy with the stipulation that you never regain your designation as an independent duty corpsman. The commanding officer also recommended retention.

However, after review, the Navy Personnel Command recommended that the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN) approve a general discharge instead of retention in the Navy. On 28 June 2005 ASN directed a general discharge, you were SO discharged on 2 August 2005 and were not recommended for reenlistment. At that time, you were credited with 17 years, 9 months and 12 days of active service.

You contend in your application, in effect, that the offenses only occurred because you were upset due to your personal situation at the time, and that the offenses would not reoccur. Since your misconduct was isolated, you believe that the Navy Personnel Command should not have recommended discharge, and ASN should not have approved the recommendation given your record of good service, the recommendation of the ADB and your commanding officer for retention, and the fact that you were so close to qualifying for retirement.

The Board believed that it was proper to hold a senior Navy corpsman to a high standard of conduct and there was no abuse of discretion when the decision was made to direct discharge in your case. Therefore, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.

Accordingly, 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 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,