Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02971-07
Original file (02971-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TUR
Docket No: 2971-07
11 February 2008

 

 

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 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 2 May 1979 at age 18. About two
months later, on 18 July 1979, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) for disobedience and disorderly conduct. You
served for nearly a year without disciplinary incident, but
during the period from 6 June 1980 to December 1981, you received

NJP on three more occasions for assault, disrespect, wrongful
communication, and unbecoming conduct.

During the period from 25 February to 29 July 1982 you received
NUP on three more occasions for wrongful appropriation, false
pretenses, and wrongful possession of marijuana.

On 10 August 1982 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian

authorities. At that time you waived your right to consult with
legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB). On 30 August 1982 your commanding officer
recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature

with military and civilian authorities.

On 16 September 1982, while awaiting discharge authorization, you
began a period of unauthorized absence (UA). As a result, on 30
September 1982, the discharge authority directed your commanding
officer to hold your separation in abeyance pending termination
of your period of UA. On 15 October 1982 you terminated the
foregoing period of UA. Subsequently, the discharge authority
directed separation under honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature
with military and civilian authorities, and on 26 November 1982

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. 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 seven NJPs.
Further, the Board noted that you were given an opportunity to
defend yourself against these charges, but waived your right to
present your case to an ADB. Finally, Sailors discharged by
reason of misconduct normally received discharges under other
than honorable conditions, and the Board concluded you were
fortunate to have received 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,

dessa

W. DEAN PF
Executive

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06717-10

    Original file (06717-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. 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 | 06346-07

    Original file (06346-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 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 | CY2010 | 04699-10

    Original file (04699-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 76 day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02619-09

    Original file (02619-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 July 1980, you received NUP for assault and breach of the peace. On 30 July 1980, the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement. 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 | 11286-10

    Original file (11286-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After waiving your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03814-07

    Original file (03814-07.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. On 3 January 1982 the discharge authority directed discharge under honorable conditions by reason of drug abuse. 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 | 04498-09

    Original file (04498-09.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. On 12 September 1980, you received NUP for 16 periods of failure to go to your appointed place of duty and a 20 day period of UA. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00741-12

    Original file (00741-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 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 | CY2011 | 00939-11

    Original file (00939-11.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 October 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken by civil authorities for this misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03316-11

    Original file (03316-11.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. 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 15 September 1982 the discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than...