Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08111-01
Original file (08111-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E   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: 8111-01 
15 May 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 14 May 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient 
to establish the existence of probable material error or 
injustice. 

You enlisted in the Navy on 1 June 1976 at the age of 17.  Your 
record reflects that you served for a year without disciplinary 
incident until 23 June 1977 when you received nonjudicial 
punishment  (NJP) for possession of marijuana and were awarded a 
suspended restriction and extra duty, and a $150 forfeiture of 
pay.  On 12 July 1977 you received NJP for possession and use of 
marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  The punishment 
imposed was a $200 forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra 
duty for 30 days.  Shortly thereafter, on 25 August 1977, you 
received NJP for possession of marijuana and were awarded a $200 
forfeiture of pay.  On 4 November 1977 you received your fourth 
NJP for failure to obey a lawful order.  The punishment imposed 
was restriction and extra duty for 14 days and a $50 forfeiture 
of pay. 

On 11 January 1978 you received NJP for two periods of 
unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 17 days, three specifications 
of disrespect, and two specifications of disobedience.  The 
punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty for 40 days and 
a $200 forfeiture of pay. 

On 12 January 1978 you were notified of pending administrative 
separation action by reason of misconduct.  After consulting with 
legal counsel, you waived your right to present your case to an 
administrative discharge board in lieu of a recommendation for a 
general discharge.  On 23 January 1978 your commanding officer 
recommended you be issued a general discharge by reason of 
misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature 
with military authorities.  This recommendation was approved and 
the discharge authority directed a general discharge by reason of 
misconduct. On 15 February 1978 you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, 
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as 
your youth and immaturity and your contention that your repeated 
requests for transfer were not approved.  It also considered your 
contention that the characterization of your discharge prevents 
you from becoming a peace officer.  Nevertheless, the Board 
concluded these factors and contentions were not sufficient to 
warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of your 
narrative reason for separation because of your repetitive 
misconduct, which resulted in five NJPs, three of which were drug 
related.  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 | 04265-02

    Original file (04265-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 | 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 | 07617-02

    Original file (07617-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 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. On 28 August 1983 the discharge authority then directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and on 30 August...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08758-01

    Original file (08758-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 8 ' ~ u n e 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. 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 | CY2002 | 07506-02

    Original file (07506-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 09384-02

    Original file (09384-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2000 | 06134-00

    Original file (06134-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 March 2001. * You were advanced to RM3 (E-4), extended your enlistment for an additional period of four months, and served without further incident until 15 March 1982, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for use of marijuana. Counsel also noted that the senior member of the ADB was not an 0-4 line officer.

  • 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 | CY2002 | 06039-01

    Original file (06039-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. convicted by SPCM of the four specifications of disobedience and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 75 days, a $744 forfeiture of pay, reduction to discharge (BCD). 1978 you were convicted by SPCM of two periods...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07707-01

    Original file (07707-01.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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence...