Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03883-07
Original file (03883-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJR
                                                                                 Docket No: 3883-07
                                                                                 5 March 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 4 March 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 9 September 1977 at age 17 and served for seven months without disciplinary incident but on 10 April 1978 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of duty.
During the period from 2 April to 17 October 1979 you received NJP on two more occasions and were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM). Your offenses were three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 31 days, 13 periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, sleeping on duty, wrongful possession of hashish, and failure to go to your appointed place of duty. Also during this period you missed the movement of your ship and were in a UA status for two days. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this misconduct.
On 4 April 1980 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of seven periods of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, and wrongful possession of hashish. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for five months, a $500 forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). The BCD was subsequently suspended for one year.


On 22 April 1980 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After consulting with legal counsel you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 21 May 1980 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by self-admission of possession, transfer, and selling of marijuana. On 6 June 1980 your commanding officer also recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. On 14 July 1980 the discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed an other than honorable discharge, and on 25 July 1980 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, post service conduct, and desire to have your discharge upgraded. It also considered your character reference letters. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive drug related misconduct which resulted in three NJPs and two court-martial convictions. 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 | CY2013 | NR303 13

    Original file (NR303 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 16 October 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. Administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02435-06

    Original file (02435-06.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 July 1977 at age 20. On 24October 1979 you were convicted by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10853-08

    Original file (10853-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 2009. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that 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...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 09598-09

    Original file (09598-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, desire to...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 05685-06

    Original file (05685-06.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 4 January 1980 at age 17 with parental consent. However, on 6 and 20...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05016-08

    Original file (05016-08.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 14 December 1979 an ADB recommended separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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 | 02414-09

    Original file (02414-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 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. On 8 October 1983, the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07289-09

    Original file (07289-09.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. 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...