Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03912-06
Original file (03912-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 TJR
Docket No: 3912-06
 8 November 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 7 November 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 enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 13 January 1982 at age 19. On 4 February 1983 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling seven days. The punishment imposed was a $200 forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty for 15 days. On 11 March 1983 you received another NJP for failure to obey and a lawful order and assault, and were awarded a $100 forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty for 20 days.
On 29 March 1983 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to minor disciplinary actions and burden to command. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to submit a statement in rebuttal to the proposed separation action. Subsequently, your commanding officer recommended a general discharge stating, in part, as follows:
Recommend a general discharge due to Member being an administrative burden, substandard performance, and an inability to adapt....
(Member) has not and apparently will not adjust to military life..., he does not demonstrate initiative and cannot be relied upon..., is not a team player and his disregard for authority stops just short of disrespect..., his negative attitude has had a detrimental affect on morale..., he is an undue administrative and disciplinary burden..., recommend a general discharge based on overall performance average.
The discharge authority directed a general discharge, and on 11 April 1983 you were so discharged.
Character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your conduct average was 2.6. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, post service conduct, and the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your repetitive misconduct, which resulted in two NJPs, substandard performance, inability to adapt, and since your conduct average was insufficiently high to warrant an honorable discharge. 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









2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00159-99

    Original file (00159-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    in your record. Regulations required the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals discharged command due to substandard performance or by reason of inability to adapt to military service." The Board noted that you have applied for the Navy The Board also noted that the commanding and that your contention that You contend that you NJPs in only 16 months of service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02764-02

    Original file (02764-02.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 5 March 1982 you were RE-2 reenlistment code because of your honorable The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, immaturity and your contention that you should have received an RE-1 or discharge. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00131-08

    Original file (00131-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. 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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 13_04_27 CST 2001

    Original file (Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 13_04_27 CST 2001.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 September 1999. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 11_59_57 CST 2001

    Original file (Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 11_59_57 CST 2001.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 September 1999. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08750-02

    Original file (08750-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 June 2002. 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 the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4560 13

    Original file (NR4560 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2014. 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 | CY2008 | 00920-08

    Original file (00920-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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 | CY2008 | 04617-08

    Original file (04617-08.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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged the separation action and that characterization of service would be determined as warranted by your service record. Given your misconduct and failure to attain the overall trait and behavior mark averages required for a fully honorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00014-09

    Original file (00014-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2009. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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...