Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02908-07
Original file (02908-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TUR
Docket No: 2908-07

11 February 2008

 

This is in reference to your apptication for correctton 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 5 February 2008. 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 1 September 1987 at age 26. Your
record contains a message dated 20 March 1990 which states in
part, that an investigation revealed your failure to disclose
and/or claim a full pre-service arrest/conviction record,
specifically, an arrest for possession of marijuana on 15
November 1985 and an outstanding arrest warranted issued on 11
January 1988. As a result, on 3 April 1990, you were notified of
pending administrative separation action by reason of fraudulent
enlistment. After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to
present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On
30 April 1990 an ADB recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of fraudulent enlistment, however,

the ADB further recommended suspension of the discharge.

On 2 May and again on 13 June 1990 you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for two periods of absence from your appointed
place of duty and three periods of failure to go to your
appointed place of duty. Shortly thereafter, on 26 June 1990,
your commanding officer notified the discharge authority of the
dismissal of your pre-service disciplinary incidents. On 2 July
1990 the discharge authority directed retention in spite of the
fraudulent enlistment and you were warned that any further
misconduct could result in an administrative separation.

On 16 January and 7 March 1991 you received NUJP for three periods
of absence from your appointed place of duty, failure to obey a
lawful order, and making a false official statement. On 18 March
1991 you were notified of pending administrative separation
action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
After consulting with legal counsel and ebjecting to the
discharge, you elected to present your case to an ADB. On 29 May
1991 an ADB recommended separation under honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. About a
month later, on 27 June 1991, you received NJP for five periods
of absence from your appointed place of duty and were awarded
restriction and extra duty for 30 days. At that time you were
also referred for a psychiatric evaluation due to a suicidal

gesture of taking an overdose of pills.

Subsequently, your commanding officer also recommended a general
discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct
as evidenced by five NJPs, pre-service misconduct, and
psychiatric problems. On 8 July 1991 the discharge authority
approved these recommendations and directed separation under
honorable conditions, and on 17 July 1991 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 assertion that your discharge is unjust.
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 five NUPs. Finally, Sailors discharged by reason of
misconduct normally receive discharges under other than honorable
conditions, so the Board concluded you were fortunate to receive

a general 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,

\p |
W. DEAN
Executive Di O

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03688-08

    Original file (03688-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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. On 28 August 1991, the discharge authority directed an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02859-08

    Original file (02859-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 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. On 19 March 1993, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11360-10

    Original file (11360-10.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 August 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. On 29 October 1991 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02322-07

    Original file (02322-07.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.On 25 April 1988, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. On 19 August 1991, you had NJP for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02322-07

    Original file (02322-07.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.On 25 April 1988, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. On 19 August 1991, you had NJP for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00652-09

    Original file (00652-09.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 December 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. On 8 August 1991, you received NUP for disobeying a direct order and a lawful order.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03581-08

    Original file (03581-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 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. when applying for a correction of an official naval urden is on the applicant to demonstrate the probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 07727-11

    Original file (07727-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considere@a your -application on 2 August 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 or a change of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03180-08

    Original file (03180-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is separated due to misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03100-08

    Original file (03100-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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. You were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.