DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG
Docket No: 6765-07
26 August 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the 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 19 August 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You initially enlisted in the Navy on 9 August 1971 and served
continuously after that date until your discharge. On 16 June
1983 you reenlisted for six years. Two years later, you were
advanced to petty officer first class. During the period from 1
December 1985 to 5 November 1986, you received two consecutive
adverse performance evaluations. On 20 November 1986 you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a failure to go to your
appointed place of duty and were reduced to petty officer second
class.
On 5 December 1986 you received a letter of substandard service
which placed you on notice that your performance and conduct
needed to improve. The next month, on 15 January 1987, you
received another NJP for being absent from your appointed place
of duty. The punishment was a reduction in rate to petty officer
third class which was suspended. The evaluation for the period
ending 31 March 1987 is adverse. It states in the evaluation
that you were pending assignment to the alcohol rehabilitation
course and that successful completion and sustained improved
performance could result in retention in the Navy.
It appears that you reported to the alcohol rehabilitation course
on 1 April 1987. You completed the treatment and reported to
your new unit on 15 May 1987. The performance evaluation for the
period ending 31 March 1988 notes that you ‘had an alcohol related
incident which had resulted in an extension of your aftercare but
was otherwise satisfactory. In the next evaluation for the
period ending 28 October 1988 you were highly recommended for
retention. You reported to a new command on 11 November 1988.
Fourteen days later, you received NUP for an unauthorized absence
of about 23 hours. A subsequent drug and alcohol abuse report
noted that you were alcohol dependent and were not amenable for
treatment. Subsequently, you were granted a one month extension
for transition purposes. On 18 July 1989, you were honorably
discharged. At that time, you had completed 17 years, 11 months
and 10 days of active service.
In its review of your application the Board carefully
weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the length of
your service and contention that you should have been retained to
qualify for retirement. The Board found that these factors and
contention were not sufficient to warrant corrective action given
your history of alcohol abuse, alcohol rehabilitation failure,
repeated adverse performance evaluations and disciplinary record.
In was clear to the Board that you were given every opportunity
for retention in the Navy but continued to abuse alcohol and
commit disciplinary infractions. It is clear that the decision
to deny you further service was only made after you were given
every opportunity to improve your behavior. The Board concluded
that the action to deny you further service was supported by the
record and there was no abuse of discretion in this matter.
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,
Wud
W. DEAN PFE
Executive DiWector
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1420 13
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 ‘ro establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10654-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 2011. 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 09391-97
The record also shows that during the period from 1 April 1986 to 30 November 1987 you received two consecutive adverse performance In the second evaluation for the period 1 April to evaluations. You were honorably discharged on 1 May 1990 However, you were assigned duties outside At that time you In reaching its decision the Board noted your disciplinary record, adverse performance evaluations and the fact that you elected separation prior to removal from quality control. Consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01195-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 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 discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06265-98
advanced to SK3 (E-4) on 16 June 1977. enlistment, you completed an alcohol rehabilitation program. The performance evaluation for the period 19 On 11 September 1981 you were again counseled concerning your abuse of alcohol. days later your recommendation for advancement was formally withdrawn because of a lack of professional and military skills and alcohol abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03300-01
recommended for advancement, an RE-4 reenlistment code was the only code that could be assigned. differently than others released from active duty under similar circumstances, the Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned reenlistment code. 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 | CY2012 | 00923 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01737-80
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2008. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your misconduct that continued...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02574-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Recotds, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2010. In March 1988 a second Navy Mental Health evaluation was conducted and you were diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity syndrome, tinea pedis, and alcohol dependence, and directed to complete your confinement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00651-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and you received a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse on 9 January 1989. In its review of your application...