SMW
Docket No:
2870-05
24 October
2005
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
husband’s 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 19
October 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 husband’s 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.
Your husband enlisted in the Navy on 13 March 1986 at the age of
21. On 27 February 1987 he began an unauthorized absence (UA) that
ended on 15 March 1987, a period of about 24 days. On 25 March 1987
he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from his
appointed place of duty.
On 14 August 1987 your husband missed the sailing of his ship and
began another period of UA that ended on 16 September 1987, a period
of about 34 days. Eight days later, on 24 September 1987 he began
another period of UA that ended on 16 February 1988, a period of
about 146 days. On 25 February 1988 a special court-martial (SPCM)
convicted him of these offenses. The court sentenced him to 45 days
of confinement, $800 in forfeitures of pay, reduction to pay grade E-
1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 17 March 1988 he was
released from confinement and placed on appellate leave. After the
BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 14 September 1989 he was
so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your husband’s entire record and your
application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors
such as your desire for a better discharge to qualify for veteran’s
benefits, and your contentions that he served three full years of service
and his misconduct may be attributed to alcohol abuse. Nevertheless, the
Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of his discharge because of the repetitive misconduct,
especially the UA’s that totaled more than six months. The Board also noted
that he served about 16 months of total active service before he was placed
on appellate leave. Additionally, there is no evidence in the records to
show that he abused alcohol while in the service and even if there was,
alcohol abuse does not excuse misconduct. Therefore, the Board concluded
that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your husband’s case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. He is 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04339-12
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2013. Additionaily, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2006 | 10778-06
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.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.On 24 February 1986 you reenlisted in the Navy at age 26 after two prior periods of honorable service....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1420 13
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 ‘ro establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00245-08
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. In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the length of time since the discharge was issued and your contention that the reason for your discharge should at least be corrected to show that you were separated under other than...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06765-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 2008. On 20 November 1986 you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were reduced to petty officer second class. At that time, you had completed 17 years, 11 months and 10 days of active service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04720-10
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 | CY2011 | 01157-11
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 7 August 1989 you received NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty. 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 | CY2007 | 05741-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2008. On 15 January 1990, you began a UA that ended on 3 February 1990, a period of about 19 days. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05479-07
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.On 12 October 1984, you enlisted in the Naval Reserve at age 19. On 3 June 1985, you began a period...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08594-07
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.On 23 March 1984, you enlisted in the Navy at age 22. On 11 March 1985, you began another UA that...