Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03885-07
Original file (03885-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                  TJR
                                                                                          Docket No; 3885-07
                                                                                          24 January 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-me mb er 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 24 June 1982 at age 20 and served without disciplinary incident until 18 March 1984, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for communicating a threat. The punishment imposed was a suspended reduction in paygrade and confinement on bread and water for three days.
During the period from 4 May to 14 August 1985 you received NJP on three more occasions for disobedience, dereliction of duty, absence from your appointed place of duty, and two periods of failure to go to your appointed place of duty.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. After consulting with legal counsel you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 11 September 1985 an AIDE recommended discharge under honorable conditions, but also recommended that the discharge be suspended for nine months. On 23 September 1985 your commanding officer concurred with the recommendation of the ADB but recommended immediate separation. On 8 October 1985 the discharge authority approved the recommendation for a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and frequent involvement of discreditable nature with military authorities, and on 25 October 1985, you were so discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your period of honorable service and various explanations regarding alleged injustices. it also considered your multiple requests to expunge and/or administratively correct your record, upgrade the characterization of your discharge, and change your narrative reason for separation and reenlistment code. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant favorable action to your multiple requests. Further, a Sailor who is separated by reason of misconduct would normally receive an other than honorable discharge, and as such, the Board concluded you were fortunate to receive a discharge under honorable conditions. Finally, you should contact the Department of the Navy, Navy Personnel Command (BUPERS), Sailor Assistance Center, Code Pers-3l2F, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055-3120 in regards to your request for administrative corrections to your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active duty (DD Form 214). 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 | CY2009 | 04237-09

    Original file (04237-09.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. You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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 | CY2009 | 02229-09

    Original file (02229-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 23 April 1985 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 30 April 1985, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01634-09

    Original file (01634-09.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 25 May 1985 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 7 June 1985, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03191-11

    Original file (03191-11.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. On 13 November 1991 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian authorities as evidenced by a civil misdemeanor conviction, two NUPs, failure to pay just debts, and writing insufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01710-09

    Original file (01710-09.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 19 February 1986 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 21 February 1986, you were so discharged. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12555 11

    Original file (12555 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2012. Documentary material considered by +he 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 | CY2008 | 10140-08

    Original file (10140-08.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, reguiations, and policies. With regard to your reenlistment code, the Board found no factors to warrant a change, which was based on your disciplinary record and substandard behavior. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged due to misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3131-13

    Original file (NR3131-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2014. Documentary material considered by .the Board consisted of your application, together. _ 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 | CY2005 | 00558-05

    Original file (00558-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2005. 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, you subsequently waived your right to present your case to an ADB in exchange for a recommendation for a general discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04514-09

    Original file (04514-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 2010. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your case to an ADB. 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.