DEPARTMENT 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
TJR
Docket No: 6700-01
12 March 2002
Dear
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 5 March 2001. 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.
The Board found you enlisted in the Navy on 18 August 1989 at the
age of 19. Your record reflects that on 11 October 1991 you were
convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a 30 day period of
unauthorized absence (UA) and missing the movement of your ship.
You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days,
reduction to paygrade E-2, and a $150 forfeiture of pay.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense. After consulting with legal counsel you elected
to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
On 10 February 1992 an ADB found that you had committed
misconduct but recommended you be retained. On 12 February 1992
your commanding officer concurred in the recommendation for
retention, and the separation authority apparently directed such
action.
On 31 July 1992 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
failure to go to your appointed place of duty and failure to obey
a lawful order. The punishment imposed was restriction and extra
duty for 45 days, a $786 forfeiture of pay, and reduction to
A portion of the punishment was suspended.
paygrade E - 1 .
Shortly thereafter, on 8 August 1992, you received NJP for
failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were awarded
confinement on bread and water for three days and a $393
suspended forfeiture of pay. The suspended portion of the 31
July 1992 NJP was also vacated at that time. On 16 September
1992 you received NJP for two specifications of failure to go to
your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was
restriction for 60 days and a $786 suspended forfeiture of pay.
However, on 18 September 1992, the suspended forfeiture was
vacated due to your continued misconduct.
On 25 February 1993 you received your fourth NJP for absence from
your appointed place of duty and were awarded a $100 forfeiture
of pay and restriction and extra duty for 21 days.
On 26 October 1993 you were honorably released from active duty
and transferred to the Naval Reserve. At that time you were
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity and post service conduct. However, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a
change in the assigned reenlistment code given your frequent
misconduct, which resulted in a court-martial conviction and four
NJPs. Further, the Board noted that your misconduct continued
even after you were processed for separation and retained in the
Navy after committing a serious offense. Given all the
circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your reenlistment
code was proper 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,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07506-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 3 May 2 0 0 3 . 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 served for a year without disciplinary incident, but on 3 1 December 1 9 8 1 , you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for dereliction in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00133-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materizl submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. On 29 April 1992 the separation action was forwarded to the Chief of Naval Personnel for final action and on 5 June 1992, your discharge was directed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08767-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 1999. 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 | CY2002 | 09384-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2003. You received NJP on 22 February 1992 for a 17 period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 4 5 days and a $550 forfeiture of pay. However, the record does not reflect that any disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07893-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2003. 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. Subsequently, the discharge authority approved this recommendation your commanding officer was directed to issue you a general discharge by reason...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05204-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted and applicable statutes, regulations and Your allegations of error and After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11198-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 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 26 February 1992 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10329-02
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 | CY2002 | 07210-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2003. 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 | 06958-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2 0 0 2 . 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 21 December 1983 your commanding officer recommended you be separated under okher than honorable conditions due to drug abuse.