Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09216-04
Original file (09216-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                    TJR
                                                                                          Docket No: 9216-04
                                                                                          29 August 2005



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 16 August 2005. 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 31 January 1984 at age 18. You served for two years and five months without disciplinary incident, but on 15 May 1986, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was restriction for 15 days, reduction to paygrade E-2, and a $200 forfeiture of pay. On 31 July 1986 you received NJP for assault and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 30 days, a $392 forfeiture of pay, and reduction to paygrade E-1. A portion of the punishment was suspended for six months.
On 28 February and again on 9 March 1987 you received NJP for larceny, wrongful appropriation, and absence from your appointed place of duty. On 12 March 1987 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. After consulting with legal counsel you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADE). On 13 March 1987 an AiDE recommended that you receive an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and
 commission of a serious offense. Your commanding officer also recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct. On 13 April 1987 the discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions, and on 29 April 1987 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and assertion that you did not commit a serious offense. it also considered your assertion that your discharge is unwarranted and unjust because you were not allowed due process during your NJP or discharge proceedings. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your serious and repetitive misconduct, which resulted in four NJPs. Further, the Board noted that the record contains evidence which is contrary to your assertion that you were denied due process during your discharge proceedings. 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,









2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09184-04

    Original file (09184-04.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 3 October 1985 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident until 11...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07731-07

    Original file (07731-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2008. 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 | 10956-02

    Original file (10956-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 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. However, on 18 December 1986, this suspended sentence was vacated due to your continued misconduct, specifically, a four day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03627-10

    Original file (03627-10.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. 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 | CY2009 | 02392-09

    Original file (02392-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RK three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2010. Documentary material congidered 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 23 March 1988 you received NUP for two periods of UA totalling two days, failure to obey a lawful order, and four periods of absence from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04638-02

    Original file (04638-02.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 15 January 1985 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for larceny and were awarded a $300 forfeiture of pay, a portion of which was suspended for six months. Shortly thereafter, on 28 October 1987, you received The reduction and forfeitures were suspended for six The punishment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9808767

    Original file (NC9808767.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 1999. 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 | CY1998 | 08767-98

    Original file (08767-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 1999. 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 | CY2010 | 10771-10

    Original file (10771-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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 | CY2001 | 04449-01

    Original file (04449-01.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. Your record further reflects that on 4 February 1986 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty, breaking...