Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03812-01
Original file (03812-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
D E P A R T M E N T   OF  THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y   A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

CRS 
Docket No:  3 8 1 2 - 0 1  
8 April  2 0 0 2  

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 3 April  2002.  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 record reflects that you received two nonjudicial 

The Board  found that you enlisted  in the Navy on 3   August  1 9 8 1  at 
age 2 2 .  
punishments.  The offenses included unauthorized absences 
totalling three days.  Subsequently, on 23 September 1 9 8 3   you 
were convicted by  civil authorities of  indecent exposure.  The 
court sentenced you to three years probation.  On 2 7   October  1 9 8 3  
you received a third  nonjudicial  punishment  for smoking in the 
paint locker.  On 2   January  1384 you were again convicted by 
civil authorities of driving while  intoxicated.  The court 
sentenced you to a  fine and confinement.  Subsequently, you 
received two more nonjudicial punishments.  The offenses included 
an unauthorized absence of a day, missing movement, absence from 
your appointed place of duty, and abandonment of watch. 

On 2 1  March  1 9 8 4   the commanding officer recommended that you be 
separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of 
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  When informed of the 
recommendation, you elected  to waive the right to present your 
case to an administrative discharge board.  On 2 4   May  1 9 8 4   you 

entered alcohol rehabilitation where you also received another 
recommendation for separation based  on your failure to complete 
the program.  After  review by  the discharge authority, the 
commanding officer's  recommendation for separation was approved 
and you were discharged  on 1 G   July  1984 with an other than 
honorable discharge. 

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating  factors, such as your youth and immaturity 
and the contention that alcohol abuse caused your misconduct. 
However, the Board  concluded that these factors were sufficient 
to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your 
record of frequent involvement with civil and military 
authorities.  In this regard, the Board noted that you were the 
subject of five disciplinary actions and two civil convictions 
within a period of less than three years.  Further, alcohol abuse 
does not excuse misconduct, and  it does not appear that your 
disciplinary  actions were caused by  such abuse.  In fact, you 
stated at the time of separation processing  that factors other 
than alcohol abuse caused your misconduct. 
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 app1,ying 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 | CY2003 | 01323-03

    Original file (01323-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 July 2003. However, on 3 October 1985 you were dropped from this counseling due to your non-amenability to treatment. 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 | CY2001 | 07792-01

    Original file (07792-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2002. 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 | CY2001 | 03842-01

    Original file (03842-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no documentation of symptoms of depression, alcohol abuse, or any other psychiatric disorder. It is unlikely that symptoms of a post-traumatic stress disorder or major depressive disorder would have "caused or significantly contributed to the misconduct of record." In summary, it does not appear that this individual's diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive disorder were symptomatic during his period of service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08643-01

    Original file (08643-01.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 2002. On 6 October 1977 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reasion of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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 | CY2001 | 07708-01

    Original file (07708-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2002. 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. Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your discharge, narrative reason for separation, and reenlistment code were proper and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10329-02

    Original file (10329-02.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. On 11 May and again on 16 July 1959 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA), failure to obey a lawful order, absence from your appointed place of duty, resisting arrest, and breach of the peace. The Board, in its review of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08114-01

    Original file (08114-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2002. 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 16 September 1983 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge, and on 21 September 1983 you were so...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10441-02

    Original file (10441-02.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 January 2003. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 14 August 1970 you received an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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 | CY2002 | 00580-02

    Original file (00580-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2002. The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 23 February 1988 for three years. The Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned reenlistment code since you were treated no differently than others discharged under similar circumstances.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07954-01

    Original file (07954-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 April 2002. In your case, the assignment of that code was also appropriate due to the civil conviction and two NJPs. 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.