DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 8675-07
27 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 21 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 24 November 1981 at age 17. You
served without disciplinary incident until 6 August 1982, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a four day period
of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction and
extra duty for 30 days and a suspended forfeiture of pay.
However, on 1 December 1982, the suspended forfeiture of pay was
vacated due to your continued absence. On 9 December 1982 you
received NUP for a two day period of UA. The punishment imposed
was restriction and extra duty for 30 days, a $150 forfeiture of
pay, and reduction to paygrade E-1, which was suspended for 120
days.
On 12 February 1983 you received your third NUP for absence from
your appointed place of duty, three specifications of
disobedience, disrespect, and communicating a threat. The
punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty for 45 days,
reduction to paygrade E-1, and a $500 forfeiture of pay. Shortly
thereafter, on 23 February 1983, you were notified of pending
administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to
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 3 March 1983 your
commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge
by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
On 7 April 1983 the discharge authority approved this
recommendation and directed discharge under other than honorable
conditions, and on 13 April 1983, 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 desire to upgrade your discharge. It also
considered your assertion that you were told that your discharge
would be automatically upgraded six months after being
discharged. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in three
NJPs. Finally, no discharge is ungraded due solely to the
passage of time. 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,
\syarS
W. DEAN PF
Executive D ctr
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06092-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 March 2011. 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 | CY2001 | 03764-01
Your allegations of error and 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& appointed place of duty On 25 October 1983 vou received was On 15 November 1983 the BCD was to be executed, Subsequently, the suspension of the forfeitures and BCD were vacated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden‘is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08721-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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. 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 | 07972-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07585-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 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 | CY2001 | 04252-01
Docket No: 4252-01 23 November 2001 .This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 01244-04
Documentary the 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 ±ris~if I iCi N1t. On 8 June 1981 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a five-day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded forfeitures of pay, a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07508-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 May 2003. On 14 April 1983 you received NJP for breach of peace and assault and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to paygrade E-2, and a $250 forfeiture of pay. 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 | 05352-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2009. for breaking restriction, two specifications of wrongful use of Marijuana, and the foregoing period of UA totalling 164 days. discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09384-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2003. You received NJP on 22 February 1992 for a 17 period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 4 5 days and a $550 forfeiture of pay. However, the record does not reflect that any disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA.