Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10778-06
Original file (10778-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

         SMW
 Docket No: 10778-06
          26       January  2007




This is in reference to your ap p lication for correction of your naval record pursuant to the pr visions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Boa d for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive s e ssion, considered your application on 24 January 2007. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in acco r dance with administrative regulations and procedures app l icable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material co n sidered 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 evi d ence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of p r obable material error or injustice.
On 24 February 1986 you reenlis t ed in the Navy at age 26 after two prior periods of honorable s ervice. On 11 September 1986 you were dropped from a manager’ s s c hool due to attendance problems. You were counseled on that same date regarding unauthorized absence (UA) and failure to obey a lawful order, referred to the family service center and award d extra military instruction. On 22 October 1986 you were counseled regarding an unspecified period of UA, and warned that f ur ther infractions could result in disciplinary action or administrative separation.
On 24 October 1987 you began a A that ended on 27 October 1987, a period of about three days. n 3 November 1987 you disclosed that you were being physically bused by your spouse and you were provided assistance by the family service center. On 17 November 1986 you referred yourself to a drug and alcohol abuse center where you disclose that you had been using cocaine.
On 1 December 1986 you began su stance abuse treatment, but failed to report back after lun h. On 17 December 1986 you returned after being in a UA status for about 16 days. You then began another UA on 25 December 1986 that ended on 2 January 1987, a period of about eight days.
On 21 January 1987 you requested an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the last three instances of UA totaling about 27 days. At that time, you consulted with counsel and acknowledged the consequences of receiving s ch a discharge. On 9 February 1987 the separation authority approved your request for an other than honorable discharges . On 13 December 1987 you were separated with an other th n honorable discharge for the good of the service to avoid tr al by court-martial. 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, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service and the abuse by your s p ouse. The Board also considered the letters of reference attesting to your positive life changes. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were provided assistance. Furthermore, the Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved since, by this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard labor and a punitive discharge. Finally, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to change it now. 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.
The Board noted that as a result of your prior periods of honorable service, you may be eligible for veteran’s benefits. You should contact the nearest office of the Department of Veterans Affairs if you desire clarification about your eligibility for those benefits.
Sincerely,


ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director







Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10053-06

    Original file (10053-06.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 | CY2008 | 01638-08

    Original file (01638-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. 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 | CY2009 | 02301-09

    Original file (02301-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2010. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1420 13

    Original file (NR1420 13.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 ‘ro establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09011-10

    Original file (09011-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 28 January 1988, you received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct that resulted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08314-10

    Original file (08314-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your three NJP’s,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11113-07

    Original file (11113-07.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02305-02

    Original file (02305-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 April 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. The CO of the DETROIT responded that when you reported on board the RTC letter of 2 June 1986 was noted in your service record, but the ship was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02024-08

    Original file (02024-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1000 14

    Original file (NR1000 14.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 2015. After careful and conscientious consideration of the eritire 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of: probable...