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 administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
Board.
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations,
and policies.
Your allegations of error and
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 April 1980 at the age of 20.
December 1981 you received nonjudicial punishment
specifications of assault, communicating a threat, drunk and
disorderly conduct, two specifications of disrespect, using
and damaging government
provoking speech, resisting arrest,
The punishment imposed was restriction for 12 days, a
property.
$200 forfeiture of pay, correctional custody for 24 days, and a
suspended reduction in rate.
On 2
(NJP) for three
On 8 April and again on 12 May 1983 you received NJP for two
specifications of disrespect, disobedience, disorderly conduct,
Waring your uniform, and drunkenness while on duty.
improperly
Subsequently, your commanding officer recommended separation by
reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, and stated that
you had utilized all the Navy's programs concerning alcohol
rehabilitation but continued to be a disciplinary problem as a
result of alcohol abuse. However, on 28 May 1983, the discharge
authority disapproved this recommendation and directed
administrative reprocessing by reason of misconduct due to a
On 2 June 1983 you were notified of
pattern of misconduct.
pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct
due to a pattern of misconduct.
rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to
an administrative discharge board.
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
1983 the discharge authority directed an other than honorable
discharge by reason of misconduct,
so discharged.
At that time you waived your
Your commanding officer
On 10 June
and on 20 June 1983 you were
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of your repetitive 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 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
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03041-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. On 21 August 1983 the discharge authority then directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 31 August 1983 you were so discharged. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05359-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04142-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2013. 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 | CY2008 | 00653-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 September 2008. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your misconduct. 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 | CY2010 | 08887-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06828-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. , On 1 January 1990 you were referred for an evaluation due to alcohol abuse and assigned to a Level iII rehabilitation program. 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 | 06828-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. , On 1 January 1990 you were referred for an evaluation due to alcohol abuse and assigned to a Level iII rehabilitation program. 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 | CY2008 | 07239-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2009. 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 8 April 1983, you were counseled regarding your unsatisfactory performance and conduct, advised that the command would assist you with alcohol...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2433-13
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, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801467
Feels the military should train service members about the dangers of alcohol abuse. The Board determined his request for an upgrade was without merit.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you...