Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01178-07
Original file (01178-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                                    TJR
                                                                                          Docket No: 1178-07
                                                                                          5 December 2007

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 4 December 2007. 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 30 March 1982 after nearly five years of honorable service. You continued to serve without disciplinary incident until 9 August 1984, when you received nonjudicia l punishment (NJP) for wrongful appropriation of a government vehicle and a one day period of unauthorized absence (tJA).
On 10 January 1985 you received NJP for wrongful use of marijuana and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to paygrade E-4, and a $400 forfeiture of pay. On 26 August 1985 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two periods of failure to go to your appointed place of duty and wrongful use of marijuana. You were sentenced to a $750 forfeiture of pay, confinement at hard labor for three months, and reduction to paygrade E-2.
On 11 September 1985 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and drug abuse. After consulting with legal counsel you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 7 October 1985 an ADB recommended separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and drug abuse. On 16 November 1985 your commanding officer also recommended separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. On 4 December 1985 the discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, On 10 December 1985 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service and assertion that because of a lack of evidence your discharge should be upgraded. It also considered the statement from the American Legion provided in support of your case. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because the seriousness of your repetitive drug related misconduct. Further, there is no evidence in the record, and you provided none, to support your assertion. 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 04907-06

    Original file (04907-06.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 18 December 1981 at age 18. On 12 November, 1985 you’ received NJP for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02911-07

    Original file (02911-07.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. 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 | CY2002 | 04182-02

    Original file (04182-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 December 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of together with all material submitted in support and applicable statutes, regulations, 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. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07441-05

    Original file (07441-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2006. 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and assertion...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11198-07

    Original file (11198-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 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. On 26 February 1992 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00578-05

    Original file (00578-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2005. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08129-07

    Original file (08129-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 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. On 2 March 1982 you received NJP for communicating a threat and were awarded a suspended forfeiture of pay.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08114-07

    Original file (08114-07.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 2 September 1986 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03723-06

    Original file (03723-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval r cord, 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 6 July 1984 at age 19. On 31 May 1985 an ADB recommended an other than...