Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07612-06
Original file (07612-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 SJN
 Docket No: 07612-06
2 February 2007







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 31 January 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 enlisted in the Navy on 23 May 1980 at age 19. During the period from 5 December 1980 to 21 December 1982 you received six nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) for assault, two occasions of drunk and disorderly conduct, two instances of communicating a threat, two instances of using disrespectful language, reporting for duty while under the influence of alcohol, four periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling about 18 days, disobedience, two instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, malingering (avoiding duty, feigning illness), and two instances of going from your appointed place of duty.
It appears that you submitted a written request for a good of the service discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for an unspecified offense(s). Prior to submitting this request for discharge, you would have conferred with a qualified military lawyer, been advised of your rights, and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. It also appears that your request for discharge was granted since the record shows that you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 19 January 1983. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, time in service, and the contention that alcohol contributed to your misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your six NJP’s for multiple offenses, and especially your request for discharge to avoid trial. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge was approved since, by this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard labor and a punitive discharge. The Board also concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to change it now. Concerning your contention that your use of alcohol impaired your ability to serve, there is no evidence in the record to support it and you submitted no such evidence. Additionally, alcohol abuse does not excuse misconduct, and disciplinary action and administrative separation are appropriate. 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,


ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director







2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09204-06

    Original file (09204-06.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.On 29 September 1978 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19 and served without incident until 9...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05743-08

    Original file (05743-08.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 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 | CY2012 | 01351 12

    Original file (01351 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2012. 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 | 03402-07

    Original file (03402-07.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 27 October 1979 at age 22. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05225-06

    Original file (05225-06.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.The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 4 October 1978 at age 17. On 25 July 1980 your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08635-05

    Original file (08635-05.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 Navy on 7 September 1976 at age 19. Your military record shows that you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06434-05

    Original file (06434-05.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. You were discharged on 11 June 1976.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00840-06

    Original file (00840-06.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.The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 9 February 1977. However, in view of all...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05736-08

    Original file (05736-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. The Board also concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09495-07

    Original file (09495-07.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 1 March 1974 at age 17. Further, the Board concluded that you...