Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02466-06
Original file (02466-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO
        
         TJR
                                                                                          Docket No: 2466-06
                                                                                         27 September 2006


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 26 September 2006. 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 September 1981 after four years of prior honorable service. You continued to serve without disciplinary incident but during the period from 29 April 1982 to 21 January 1983 you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status on two occasions for 78 days, missed the movement of your ship, declared a deserter, and tested positive for marijuana on two occasions. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken for the foregoing two periods of UA.
On 28 January 1983 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for 11 specifications of missing muster, a two periods of UA totalling four days, wrongful disposal of government property, and wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment imposed was extra duty and restriction for 45 days, a $642 forfeiture of pay, and a reduction in rate. A month later, on 25 February 1983, you received NJP for seven specifications of missing muster and dereliction of duty. The punishment imposed was confinement on bread and water for three days and a reduction in rate. On 7 March 1983 you began another period of UA and subsequently
 declared a deserter. The record reflects that on 30 June 1983, while in a UA status, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of unspecified offenses.
On 6 March 1984 you were apprehended by civil authorities, thus terminating the foregoing period of UA. As a result, on 28 March 1984, you were convicted by SPCM of a 362 day period of UA, conspiracy, larceny, and an unspecified offense. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months, a $1,134 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-l, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).
After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 2 October 1984, 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 your period of UA was due solely to miscommunication and duty assignment conflicts. It further considered your assertion that your one time lapse in judgment should not be reflective of your entire period of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in two NJPs, two court-martial convictions, and included drug abuse. 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 | CY2011 | 00082-11

    Original file (00082-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of two...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07493-08

    Original file (07493-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 11 May 1984 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01780-09

    Original file (01780-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 2010. 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 23 May 1984 you received your third NUP for a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction for 15 days and a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05352-08

    Original file (05352-08.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 2009. for breaking restriction, two specifications of wrongful use of Marijuana, and the foregoing period of UA totalling 164 days. discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03537-08

    Original file (03537-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2009. 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 | 08171-07

    Original file (08171-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2008. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11357-10

    Original file (11357-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 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 | CY2007 | 07529-07

    Original file (07529-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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. About four months later, on 2 November 1984, you were convicted by SPCM of a 48 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 63...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03764-01

    Original file (03764-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and 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& appointed place of duty On 25 October 1983 vou received was On 15 November 1983 the BCD was to be executed, Subsequently, the suspension of the forfeitures and BCD were vacated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden‘is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02758-07

    Original file (02758-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...