Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02379-02
Original file (02379-02.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: 2379-02
9 October   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 8 October 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 of
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.

paygrade  E-l.

You enlisted in the Navy on 14 March 1980 at the age of 20.
January 1981 you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for
assault and were awarded a $100 forfeiture of pay and a suspended
reduction to 
On 19 March 1981 you received NJP for
absence from your appointed place of duty and were awarded
restriction for three days, extra duty for 15 days, and a $100
forfeiture of pay.
was also vacated at this time.
1981 you received NJP for being in an area with controlled
substances, disobedience, and communicating a threat.

The foregoing suspended reduction in  

On 14 May and again on 18 June

paygrade

 

On 9

On 28 September 1981 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, two
specifications of disrespect, disobedience, three specifications
of failure to obey a lawful order,
two specifications of
resisting arrest, four specifications of assault, and two
specifications of communicating a threat.
confinement at hard labor for three months, a $900 forfeiture of
pay, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD),
which was suspended for
three months.

You were sentenced to

During the period from 15 September to 13 December 1982 you were
in a unauthorized absence (UA) status on two occasions for a
total of 76 days.
On 25 February 1983 you were convicted by SPCM
of this period of UA as well as two specifications of missing the
movement of your ship,
three specifications of disobedience, and
assault.
five months, reduction to 
pay, and a BCD.
of review, and on 30 May 1984 you were so discharged.

You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for

paygrade  E-l, a $1,000 forfeiture of

The BCD was subsequently approved at all levels

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 the discharge
was based solely on a practical joke.
Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to
warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your
repetitive misconduct which resulted in six disciplinary actions.
The Board also noted that you were sentenced to a BCD at an
earlier court-martial but it was suspended, thus giving you the
opportunity to earn a better characterization of service.
However, you failed to do so and committed further offenses.
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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00573-07

    Original file (00573-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2007. 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 | CY2007 | 03716-07

    Original file (03716-07.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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, desire to upgrade your discharge, and the passage of time. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04465-01

    Original file (04465-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 November 2001. 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. The record does not indicate if any disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA. good post service conduct, and your However, the Board concluded these...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09236-07

    Original file (09236-07.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 November 2008. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and assertions that your misconduct and discharge were the result of you being under the influence of alcohol, and that you were not offered treatment for your alcohol abuse. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00931-02

    Original file (00931-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 July 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 26 March 1981 you were convicted by SPCM of two incidents of larceny in the amount of $310, government vehicle, and communicating a threat. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04140-01

    Original file (04140-01.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 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 6 November 1980 you received NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and were awarded a $125 forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty for 14 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2679-13

    Original file (NR2679-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. 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 | 05149-01

    Original file (05149-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Your record also reflects that on 9 December 1974 you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for two periods of UA totalling four days, absence from your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09492-02

    Original file (09492-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 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 8 June 1981 the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03764-01

    Original file (03764-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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& appointed place of duty On 25 October 1983 vou received was On 15 November 1983 the BCD was to be executed, Subsequently, the suspension of the forfeitures and BCD were vacated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden‘is...