DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJIR
Docket No: 7029-07
13 May 2008
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 13 May 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.
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two periods of failure to go to
your appointed place of duty. About five months later, on 13 May
1983, you received NUP for a one day period of unauthorized
absence (UA) and absence from your appointed place of duty.
On 2 June 1983 you received your third NUP for wrongful use of
Marijuana. The punishment imposed was a $500 forfeiture of pay,
reduction to paygrade E-2, and correctional custody for 30 days.
On this same day you began a seven day period of UA that was not
terminated until 9 June 1983. However, the record does not
reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this
misconduct.
On 21: September 1983 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. At
that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and
to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
Subsequently, your commanding officer recommended separation
under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due
to drug abuse. The discharge authority approved this
recommendation and directed discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 14 November 1983 you
were so separated.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and. application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your prior honorable service and desire to have your discharge
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 three NJPs and included drug abuse. Finally, you
were given an opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your
procedural right to present your case to an ADB and perhaps
obtain a better characterization of service. 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,
ROBERT D. SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03536-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 January 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. On 24 January 1983, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10122-07
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. During the period 12 November 1982 to 18 February 1983, you had three NUP's. 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 | CY2008 | 08363-08
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 22 September, 5 October, and 10 October 1983, your urinalyses tested positive for marijuana. The Board noted that as a result of your prior periods of honorable service, you may be eligible for veterans' benefits.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05312-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2009. 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 | CY2009 | 03787-09
R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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. 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 | CY2012 | 00936 12
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 7 and 10 January 1983, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2008 | 04060-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2009. 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 connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00071-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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 | CY2011 | 01157-11
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 7 August 1989 you received NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty. 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 | CY2007 | 06458-07
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 1 February 1983 an ADB recommended separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to 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...