Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02227-03
Original file (02227-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY                              BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS                                        2 NAVY ANNEX
 WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                                                                                          FC
                                                                                          Docket No: 02227-03
                                                                                          25 August 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 20 August 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.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Naval Reserve and commenced 36 months of active duty on 12 October 1979 at age 18. During the period of 30 June to 17 October 1980, you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for the offenses of larceny, possession of drugs, four instances of absence from your appointed place of duty, and two brief periods of unauthorized absence,. On 12 January 1981, you were convicted by summary court martial (SCM) of a 12-day period of unauthorized absence and assault, and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a forfeiture of pay.

On 16 January 1981 you were notified of administrative separation processing and waived all of your procedural rights. On that same day, the commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of unsuitability. On 2 February 1981, the separation authority requested that your case be reprocessed because the request for discharge did not include the length, dates, and disposition of your offenses. On that same day, the commanding officer advised the separation authority that you had been found not to be drug dependent, and rehabilitation was not required.







On 5 February 1981, the commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. In his letter, the commanding officer stated that you were advised of your procedural rights and waived them. On 19 February 1981 the separation authority approved an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct and, on 3 March 1981, you were so discharged.

In its review of your case, the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity, and the length of time that has passed since you were discharged from the Navy. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your frequent misconduct that resulted in three NJPs and a SCM. 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 10960-02

    Original file (10960-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2003. On 17 August 1981 you received a fourth NJP for two periods of UA totalling four days and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days and a $80 forfeiture of pay. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is existence of probable on the applicant to demonstrate the material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04498-09

    Original file (04498-09.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. On 12 September 1980, you received NUP for 16 periods of failure to go to your appointed place of duty and a 20 day period of UA. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00142-03

    Original file (00142-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 2003. On 16 October 1980 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. 2 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 | CY2012 | 00741-12

    Original file (00741-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 2012. 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 | CY2007 | 03814-07

    Original file (03814-07.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. On 3 January 1982 the discharge authority directed discharge under honorable conditions by reason of drug abuse. 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 | 08131-01

    Original file (08131-01.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: 8131-01 24 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. sitting in executive session, considered your A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, application on 21 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00475-07

    Original file (00475-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 July 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. 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 | CY2010 | 04701-10

    Original file (04701-10.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 March 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 | CY2002 | 10299-02

    Original file (10299-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 12 September 1981 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for communicating a threat and were awarded a $135 forfeiture of pay and correctional custody for seven days, which was suspended for six months. ...