Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03822-07
Original file (03822-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                                                       BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                                               2 NAVY ANNEX
                                                       WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                             TJR
                                                                                 Docket No: 3822-07
                                                                                 28 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 27 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 8 November 1983 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident until 16 July 1984, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty for seven days and a $75 forfeiture of pay, all of which was suspended for four months.
During the period from 28 June 1985 to 17 June 1986 you received NJP on three more occasions for two specifications of larceny, wrongful appropriation, and a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA). You were also convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of assault and absence from your appointed place of duty.
On 11 July 1986 administrative separation processing had been initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. On 4 August 1986 your commanding officer recommended separation under other than
 honorable conditions due to a pattern of misconduct and drug abuse as evidenced by a positive urinalysis. Shortly thereafter, on 11 August 1986, you received NJP for a two day period of UA and were awarded a $319 forfeiture of pay. On 21 November 1986 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of a two day period of UA, insubordination, and six periods of absence from your appointed place of duty.
On 30 April 1987 you were again convicted by SPCM of attempts, forgery, and uttering checks with insufficient funds. You were sentenced to an unspecified period of confinement and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 9 December 1988 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 assertions that your discharge was inequitable because you were not informed of your legal rights and it does not properly characterize your military service. It also considered your assertions of medical and martial problems, lack of command cooperation, and being told that your discharge would be automatically upgraded. 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 NJP5 and three court-martial convictions. Finally, no discharge is automatically upgraded due solely to an individual’s good post service conduct or the passage of time. 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 | CY2002 | 10956-02

    Original file (10956-02.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 October 2003. 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, on 18 December 1986, this suspended sentence was vacated due to your continued misconduct, specifically, a four day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02455-06

    Original file (02455-06.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 insufficientto establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 30 January 1984 at age 18. About three months later, on 19...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11109-06

    Original file (11109-06.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.You enlisted in the Navy on 23 October 1984 at age 20 and served about four months without...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00776-06

    Original file (00776-06.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.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 December 1982 at age 28 and served for nearly a year without...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5286 13

    Original file (NR5286 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2014. 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 Co establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10960-02

    Original file (10960-02.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 October 2003. On 17 August 1981 you received a fourth NJP for two periods of UA totalling four days and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days and a $80 forfeiture of pay. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is existence of probable on the applicant to demonstrate the material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02518-06

    Original file (02518-06.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,You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 3 May 1983 at age 24 and served without disciplinary incident for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08586-06

    Original file (08586-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 July 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 11283-11

    Original file (11283-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 August 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail 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...