Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07431-06
Original file (07431-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SJN
 Docket No: 07431-06
26 January 2007

This is in references 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-membe r p anel of the ‘Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application o 23 January 2007. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations a procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your applicant , together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
After careful nd conscientious consideration of the entire record, the B rd found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish t e existence of probable material error or injustice.
You reenlisted in the Navy on 19 June 1981 after three years of honorable ser ce. You served without incident until 27 March 1985 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for drunken driving.
On 27 February 1986 you were counseled and warned about your failure to pa just debts. You were offered assistance through your chain-of- c ommand and informed that further misconduct could make you eligible for administrative separation action.
During the pe ri od from 13 to 20 March 1985 you wrote five worthless che cks totaling about over $137. On 21 March 1985 you were arrested or two of those checks, but were subsequently released after making good on the checks and paying a fine.
On 2 September 1986 you received a second NJP for writing a bad check in the count of $12 and were reduced to paygrade E-4. On 5 Septe m be r 1986 you were notified of pending administrative separation ac ion by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. You waived your right to consult with counsel, submit a statem e nt or have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).
It was requested and you submitted a statement of your financial status and indebtedness to your commanding officer for evaluation on 10 September 1986. On 15 September 1986, your commanding officer forward his recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. In his letter he state , in part, that you had received numerous letters of indebtedness for writing bad checks and failure to pay your debts and, in site of repeated counseling efforts, you were unable to get y o ur financial affairs in order and had become a tremendous administrative burden to the command. On 30 October 1986 the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by re son of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 5 November 1 86 you were so discharged.






The Board, in i s review of your entire record and application, carefully weigh d all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior hono r able service, the period of good service in your last enlistment, and your personal problems prior to separation. However, the Bo rd found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant rech a racterization of your discharge given your record of indebtedness, writing bad checks, and the two NJP’s, one of which was for w riting a bad check after you were counseled and warned of the consequences of further misconduct. Further, you waived the rig t to an ADB, your best chance for retention or a better characterization of service. 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 acti o n cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or ot h er 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, hen applying for a correction of an official naval record, the bu r den is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of p r obable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,


ROBERT D. Z SALMAN
Acting Executive Director





2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00415-07

    Original file (00415-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel’ of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 July 2007. 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 20 April 1987 you were counseled regarding your continued failure to be at your appointed place of duty on time, and warned that failure to take...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12399-08

    Original file (12399-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2009. On 17 June 1993, the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | CY2003 | 01323-03

    Original file (01323-03.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 July 2003. However, on 3 October 1985 you were dropped from this counseling due to your non-amenability to treatment. 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 | 07899-06

    Original file (07899-06.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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 18 January 1984 at age 19. Subsequently an administrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00809

    Original file (ND99-00809.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This is why I'm ask the board to review my discharge 960228: Fleet Surveillance Support Command, Chesapeake, VA notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment, and a set pattern of failure to pay just debts.960312: Civil Conviction: Norfolk General District...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 01801-04

    Original file (01801-04.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 26 September 1986 at age 21. You served without incident for over 15...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05398-01

    Original file (05398-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dear 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. considered your application on Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 3 October 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You were so discharged on 28 May...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004211

    Original file (20080004211.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 January 1988, the applicant’s commander signed an elimination packet on the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – patterns of misconduct. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. Based on these facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which are required...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03191-11

    Original file (03191-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 January 2012. On 13 November 1991 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian authorities as evidenced by a civil misdemeanor conviction, two NUPs, failure to pay just debts, and writing insufficient...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021949

    Original file (20090021949.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His evidence shows when he retired from the military, personnel at the Corps Adjutant General's (AG) office, Fort Bragg, NC knew his address in Fayetteville, NC and the letter dated "2 May 1986" from DAPC-MSP-E, United States Army Military Personnel Center should have been forwarded to his address; c. It is his firm belief that the letter of reprimand (LOR) dated 1 October 1983, which was improperly filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) because the filing had not been directed...