Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02537-01
Original file (02537-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

ELP
Docket No. 2537-01
17 August 2001

Dear 

B

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.

considered your application on
Your allegations of error and injustice were

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
15 August 2001.
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 record reflects that you were advanced to  

You enlisted in the Navy on 28 January 1981 for four years at age
18.
and served for eight months without incident.
the 17 month period from May 1981 to October 1982 you received
four nonjudicial punishments (NJP).
Your offenses consisted of
two instances of failure to obey a lawful order, communicating a
threat, use of provoking speech, and disrespect.
these 

NJPs you were reduced in rate to RMSR (E-l).

However, during

RMSA (E-2)

As a result of

FWSA (E-2).

The record further reflects that you were reassigned to a new
command on 4 February 1983,
and were subsequently advanced again
to 
regarding your prior misconduct of disobedience, communicating a
threat, use of provoking speech, and disrespect.
that failure to take corrective action could result in
administrative separation under other than honorable conditions.

On 6 July 1983 you were formally counseled

You were warned

You continued to serve without further incident and were advanced
to RMSN (E-3).
December 1983 to February 1984 you received two more  
instances of use of provoking speech and gestures, and two brief
periods of unauthorized absence totaling about 70 minutes.

However, during the three month period from

NJPs for two

On 17 February 1984 you were notified that administrative
discharge action was being initiated by reason of misconduct due
You were advised of your procedural
to a pattern of misconduct.
rights and told that if discharge was approved, it could be under
other than honorable conditions.
counsel, your waived the right to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB).
officer recommended discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct.
approved the recommendation and you were so discharged on 9 March
1984.

The Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command

After consulting with legal

Thereafter, the commanding

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity
and the fact that it has been more than 17 years since you were
The Board noted your contention to the effect that
discharged.
you will graduating this year with a bachelor of science degree
in nursing, and an upgrade of your discharge would permit you to
The
work.in a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) hospital.
Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contention were
insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your record of six  
were reassigned to a new command, you were warned about your
prior misconduct.
disciplinary experience and your continued misconduct demon-
strated a willful disregard of Navy rules and regulations.
Board noted the aggravating factor that you waived the right to
present your case to an ADB,
should be retained or discharged under honorable conditions.
Board concluded that you were guilty of too misconduct to warrant
recharacterization to honorable or under honorable conditions.
Your desire to work in a DVA hospital does not provide a valid
basis for recharacterizing service.
application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.

the one opportunity to show why you

The names and votes of the members

However, you failed to learn from your earlier

NJPs.

The Board noted that after you

The

The

Accordingly, your

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 pre-
sumption of regularity attaches to all official records.

2

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

3



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10123-07

    Original file (10123-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued after you were repeatedly warned that further infractions could result in an OTH discharge. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02177-08

    Original file (02177-08.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. On 10 May 1985, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03179-07

    Original file (03179-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3628 13

    Original file (NR3628 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2014. 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. The Board found that during the period from 3 June 1982 to 20 January 1984, you received five nonjudicial punishments (NUP’s) for two instances of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04313-09

    Original file (04313-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2010. 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. records.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06405-06

    Original file (06405-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.On 7 July 1978 you enlisted in the Navy at age 18, and on 31 October 1978 you received nonjudicial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06590-10

    Original file (06590-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. 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. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which found that you had committed misconduct, and recommended an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02439-09

    Original file (02439-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A ches tietiber panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 12 January 2010. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02228-02

    Original file (02228-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 TJR Docket No: 2228-02 19 September 2002 This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04288-10

    Original file (04288-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 2011. 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...