Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08067-07
Original file (08067-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TUR
Docket No: 8067-07
3 October 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 1 October 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 26 October 1987 at age 18 and served
without disciplinary incident until 29 October 1988, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a 28 day period of
unauthorized absence (UA) and missing the movement of your ship.
On 2 August 1990 you received NJP for absence from your appointed
place of duty, dereliction of duty, and making a false official
statement. On 20 September 1990 you received your third NUP for
disrespect and disobedience.

Your record also reflects that during the period from 9 August
1988 to 20 September 1990 you were counselled on three occasions,
but did not receive disciplinary action for deficiencies in your
performance and conduct; specifically, alcohol abuse, disrespect,
a 72 hour period of UA, tardiness, and failure to obey a lawful
order.
Subsequently, you were notified of a pending administrative
discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct
and commission of a serious offense. At that time you waived
your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case
to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 21 September 1990
your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. On 27 September 1990 the discharge authority
approved this recommendation and directed an other than honorable
discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 18 October 1990, 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 request for a corrected Certificate of Discharge
or Release from Active Duty (DD Form 214). It also considered
your assertion that the characterization of service in your naval
record should be changed to reflect the same characterization of
service that was given by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA). Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in three
NUPs and repeated counselling due to deficiencies in your
performance and conduct. Further, the DVA only has the authority
to recharacterize your service for their purposes. [In other
words, the DVA does not have any jurisdiction to change your
naval record. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02222-08

    Original file (02222-08.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05741-07

    Original file (05741-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2008. On 15 January 1990, you began a UA that ended on 3 February 1990, a period of about 19 days. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08852-07

    Original file (08852-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warning that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01195-10

    Original file (01195-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2008 | 02195-08

    Original file (02195-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of thé Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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 | CY2008 | 02177-08

    Original file (02177-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 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 10 May 1985, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01610-10

    Original file (01610-10.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 November 2010. After waiving your procedural rights, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and on 18 April 1990, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01157-11

    Original file (01157-11.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 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 | 07864-07

    Original file (07864-07.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 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02235-08

    Original file (02235-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of...