DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F NAVAL 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
TRG
Docket No: 6278-02
23 July 2003
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the 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 22 July 2003. 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.
You enlisted in the Navy on 8 June 1984 at age 18. On 26 April
1985 you were disenrolled from the Nuclear Power Training Program
due to academic failure. You reported aboard the USS ENTERPRISE
(CVN 65) on 21 June 1985. During the period from 26 November
1985 to 24 May 1986, you received nonjudicial punishment on two
occasions and were convicted by a summary court-martial. Your
offenses were two periods of unauthorized absence totaling about
five days, absence from your appointed place of duty, dereliction
of duty and missing ship's movement. The punishments imposed
resulted in forfeitures of pay and a reduction in rage to fireman
recruit, (FR; E-1). During this period, on 27 March 1986, your
request for discharge as a conscientious objector was denied.
Additionally, prior to the summary court-martial, you were
counseled and warned that further misconduct could lead to
discharge under other than honorable conditions.
Based on the foregoing record, you were processed for an
administrative discharge by reason of misconduct. In connection
with this processing, you elected to waive the right to have your
case heard by an adminiqtraFive discharge b a r d . A f t e r review,
the discharge authority directed discharge under other than
honorable conditions and you were so discharged on 17 July 1986.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, request for
discharge because you were a conscientious objector, and your
desire for a better discharge. The Board found that these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge given your record of misconduct. Your request for
discharge because you were a conscientious objector was carefully
investigated. The letter of 27 March 1986 that notified you that
the request was denied stated that your "statements clearly
demonstrate that your request for discharge (was) based on
dissatisfaction with the naval service and not by reason of
conscientious objector beliefs." After this letter, you
committed the offenses that led to the summary court-martial
conviction and discharge processing. The Board concluded that the
discharge was proper as issued 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01323-03
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 | 07488-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2002. Your record reflects that on 21 August 1982 you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated until you were apprehended by civil authorities on 9 April 1985. 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 | 09534-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2003. 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 | CY2001 | 06854-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06030-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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 | 07157-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 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. The Board found that on 16 August 1985, after about six years of prior enlisted service in the Marine Corps, you were appointed a second lieutenant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03705-06
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 s.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 enlist d in the Naval Reserve on 28 February 1985 and began a period of active duty on 17...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06070-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 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. On 26 March 1996, this Board denied your requests for further recharacterization of your service, and changes in your narrative reason for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01469-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 2003. However, the Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your conviction by a general court-martial of a very lengthy period of desertion. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06881-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2002. The recommendations of the medical board were to attempt to control the cluster headaches through medication and a six month period of limited duty. Additionally the Board considered the statements of your commanding officer concerning his investigation, your personal letter written concerning your positive urinalysis test and the fact that you were...