Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06784-03
Original file (06784-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                 BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                                                               TRG
                                                                                          Docket No: 6784-03
                                                                                          28 July 2004

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 July 2004. 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 reenlisted in the Navy for four years on 16 July 1994 as a petty officer fir. t clas~ (BUI. F-fl - At that time you had completed about II years of active duty on prior enlistments.
The record shows 10 October 1995 you were drunk and disorderly aboard a commercial flight and were apprehended by police when the plane landed in Los Angeles. On 3 February 1996, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for indecent assault, disorderly conduct and drunkenness based on your conduct aboard the aircraft. The punishment imposed was 45 days restriction, forfeitures of pay totaling $1824 and a reduction in rate to petty officer second class (BU2; E-5).
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative discharge by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure and commission of a serious offense. At that time, you elected to exercise all of your rights. However, on 28 February 1996 you entered an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment program and successfully completed the program on 28 March 1996.
Am administrative discharge board (ADB) convened on 19 April 1996 and concluded that you had committed misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense and recommended a general discharge. The ADB considered numerous excellent character references concerning your many years of outstanding service. Subsequently, the commanding officer agreed that you had committed misconduct but strongly recommended your retention in the Navy. He noted that your qualifications and outstanding performance of duty made you a great asset to the Navy. He believed that you had learned your lesson and there would be no further alcohol related misconduct. However, after review, the discharge authority concurred with the ADB’s recommendation and directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct. You were so discharged on 30 August 1996.




In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your many years of outstanding service and your contentions that it is hard to get a good job with a general discharge, and you have lost the means to support your family. However, the Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the misconduct that led to your discharge. The Board believed that your many years of outstanding service were considered when the ADB recommended a general discharge. In this regard, the Board noted a discharge under other than honorable conditions is authorized and normally assigned when an individual is discharged due to misconduct. The Board thus 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.













2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00801-99

    Original file (00801-99.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 August 1999. Your record reflects that prior to your reenlistment you had four convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) and had completed in-patient (level 111) alcohol rehabilitation treatment in April 1986. The Board notes that the Navy is very reluctant to discharge an individual with more than 19 years of service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06979-00

    Original file (06979-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    in which his division officer, LT (G) upon returning ETCS (St.C) recalls an event on March 17, 1997 aboard USS SAIPAN from morning officers' call, informed him that the CSD division had been selected for urinalysis screening. that had the whatever division I am in. contention that CSF division was selected only because you were a However, every individual who testified member of that division.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05566-10

    Original file (05566-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2011. You also had two additional periods of UA totaling 37 days for which no disciplinary action was taken. 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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_17_36 CDT 2000

    Original file (Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_17_36 CDT 2000.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Further, other individuals stated that you did not notify the command until the third duty day after the arrest. You contend that the arrest was reported on the first day back to work; you were directed not to have any contact with anyone on board the submarine, and therefore could not obtain any witnesses; the executive officer threatened further adverse action if you appealed the NJP; and you were told that you would receive additional alcohol rehabilitation prior to discharge. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00198-02

    Original file (00198-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your record further reflects that you were awarded your third Navy Achievement Medal in April 1996 and were advanced to chief petty officer (E-7) on 16 August 1996 Your record further shows that you were hospitalized for alcohol detoxification between 14 to 16 October 1997, and subsequently returned to your command for immediate assignment to an alcohol treatment program. Although your record does not contain the documents concerning your alcohol abuse treatment, it is clear from your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06293-06

    Original file (06293-06.rtf) 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.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 31 August 2004 at age 19 and served without disciplinary incident until 21...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00122-11

    Original file (00122-11.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 April 2011. Unfortunately you were administratively separated with an other than honorable discharge (OTH) due to repeated acts of misconduct in June of 1996. 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 | CY2003 | 02572-03

    Original file (02572-03.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. undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct and you were so discharged on 13 December 1963. such as your prior honorable The names and Therefore, if you have Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07515-00

    Original file (07515-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 February 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. general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a An ADB recommended you be issued a After consulting with legal However, the discharge authority...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00734

    Original file (ND00-00734.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    920711: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 920811: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. I have sought counseling and am now in control of my problem.” The NDRB found, contrary to the applicant’s issue, the applicant was afforded counseling for his abuses of alcohol, and...