Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00508-07
Original file (00508-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO
                                    TJR
                                                                                          Docket No: 508-07
                                                                                                   7 November 2007


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 6 November 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 20 June 1985 at age 18. About four months later, on 2 October 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a 19 day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction for 30 days and a $285 forfeiture of pay.
On 26 March 1986 you received NJP for a 21 day period of UA and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 45 days and a $636 forfeiture of pay. On 30 May 1986 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty and wrongful use of marijuana. You were sentenced to confinement for 90 days and a $840 forfeiture of pay. On 16 September 1986, during a medical evaluation, you reported in part, that you tried cocaine and marijuana and used drugs as a means to get out of the service.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB) On 6 October 1986 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, stating in part, that even though you were given many opportunities to become a productive Sailor, your lack of motivation and attitude adversely affected the morale of the command. On 18 December 1986 the Chief of Naval Personnel also recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of drug abuse as evidenced by the SPCM for use of marijuana. On 5 January 1987 the discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed an other than honorable discharge, and on 26 January 1987 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and desire to upgrade your discharge so that you may enlist in the Army National Guard. It also considered your criminal history reports provided in support of your case. 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 and a court-martial conviction, and included drug abuse. Finally, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your case to an ADE. 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 | CY2006 | 10625-06

    Original file (10625-06.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 6 September 1984 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. On 9 July 1985 you were counseled...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02574-09

    Original file (02574-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Recotds, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2010. In March 1988 a second Navy Mental Health evaluation was conducted and you were diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity syndrome, tinea pedis, and alcohol dependence, and directed to complete your confinement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01141-07

    Original file (01141-07.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 Marine Corps on 14 March 1986 at age 19 and served without disciplinary incident...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04888 12

    Original file (04888 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 26 March 2013. 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 17 July 1986, you began a period of UA that at lasted nine days, ending on 10 August 1986.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12070 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR12070 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2015. 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, in its review of your entire record and application with supporting documentation, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03627-10

    Original file (03627-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 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 | CY2010 | 10995-10

    Original file (10995-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval’ Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 2011. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your case to an administrative discharge 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 or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05254-10

    Original file (05254-10.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 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted Or your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policiés: After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08418-09

    Original file (08418-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 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. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which recommended three to zero an other than honorable discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04449-01

    Original file (04449-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 November 2001. 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. Your record further reflects that on 4 February 1986 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty, breaking...