DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 6672-05
6 October 2005
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 21
September 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 26 February 1981.
The record reflects that you received three nonjudicial punishments
and were convicted by a summary court-martial. The offenses included
unauthorized absences totaling 44 days, disobedience of a lawful
order, smoking in an unauthorized area, violation of a lawful general
regulation, willful disobedience of a lawful order, possession of
marijuana, and assault.
On 13 October 1983 the commanding officer recommended that you be
separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. When informed of the
recommendation, you elected to waive the right to present your case
to an administrative discharge board. After review by the discharge
authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 27
October 1983 you received an other than honorable discharge.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as the contention that a
mental illness caused your misconduct. However, the Board concluded that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge, given your record of frequent involvement with military
authorities. In this regard, the Board noted that you were the subject of
four disciplinary actions within a period of less than three years.
Further, there is no evidence of any mental illness in your record and you
have presented none. 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06892-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 May 2009. The discharge authority then directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. 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 | 06124-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2001. 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. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06976-07
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 January 1979, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. In connection with this processing,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07844-06
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 17 October 1973 at age 17. On 31 July 1974, you received...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 01026-05
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 Marine Corps on 8 June 1979 at age 18. You waived your rights to consult counsel,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09990-04
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 review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 16 October 1984 you received an other than honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4018 14
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00344-06
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 11 September 1975 at age 18. It is clear from the record that several...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10933-02
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is existence of probable on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07948-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 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. In this regard, mental problems are not an excuse for misconduct, and disciplinary action and administrative separation were appropriate in your case.