Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01187-00
Original file (01187-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Y

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON, D.C. 203704100

JRE
Docket No: 
23 October 2000

118740

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 19 October 2000. 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.

The Board found that you were discharged from that Navy on 5 January 1998 by reason of
misconduct, based on your commission of multiple violations of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, and your receipt of nonjudicial punishment on six occasions. On 2 July
1998, the Department of Veterans Affairs determined that your discharge was under
dishonorable conditions, and that “insanity was not an issue”.

As there is no indication in the available records that you suffered from major depression
during your enlistment, and that your misconduct was the product of such a mental disorder,
the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. 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,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02377-02

    Original file (02377-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TJR Docket No: 2377-02 4 October 2002 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. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12114-08

    Original file (12114-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2009. The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that a line of duty investigation (LODI) was not conducted in your case. 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 | BCNR | CY2009 | 05087-09

    Original file (05087-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2009. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07570-08

    Original file (07570-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 2008. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08470-07

    Original file (08470-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2008. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit for duty on or before 16 October 1998, or you're your condition was incurred in or aggravated by your service in the Navy Reserve, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07525-08

    Original file (07525-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 2009. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02810-00

    Original file (02810-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 12 November 1998 at age 18. Subsequently, you were referred for a psychiatric evaluation due to an undisclosed history of psychiatric treatment. In 1996, he (He) has The diagnosis was Dysthymic Disorder and you were recommended for separation because of the disqualifying psychiatric condition.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07169-07

    Original file (07169-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    07169-07 21 March 2008This 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 18 March 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00433-03

    Original file (00433-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted Your allegations of error and After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08088-01

    Original file (08088-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 April 2002. On 16 June 2000 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your request for an upgrade of the discharge. Further, this contention is quite different from what you told the NDRB.