Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09236-07
Original file (09236-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TIR
Docket No: 9236-07
6 November 2008

 

This ig 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 5 November 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 18 July 1978 at age 18 and served
without disciplinary incident until 2 October 1979, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for disrespect, two
specifications of assault, disobedience, failure to obey a lawful
order, using provoking speech and gestures, and an unspecified
offense. The punishment imposed was a $200 forfeiture of pay,
extra duty for 45 days, and reduction to paygrade E-2, all of
which was suspended for six months.

On 11 September 1980 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of a six day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and
missing the movement of your ship. You were sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for 45 days and reduction to paygrade
E-2. About three months later, on 18 December 1980, you were
convicted by SPCM of disrespect, assault, disobedience by

drinking alcoholic beverages while on restriction, theft of a
case of beer valued at $5.40, and communicating a threat. You
were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 45 days, a $1,000
forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct
discharge (BCD). Subsequently, the BCD was approved at all
levels of review, and on 24 May 1982 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 assertions that your misconduct and discharge were
the result of you being under the influence of alcohol, and that
you were not offered treatment for your alcohol abuse.
Nevertheless, these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repetitive and frequent misconduct which resulted in NJP
and two court-martial convictions. Finally, your assertion of
alcoholism is not an excuse for misconduct, and disciplinary
action and an administrative separation are appropriate for
alcohol related offenses. 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,

LO Deas

W. DEAN PFE
Executive D xr

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03716-07

    Original file (03716-07.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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, desire to upgrade your discharge, and the passage of time. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11790-10

    Original file (11790-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A teres member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 September 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02379-02

    Original file (02379-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2002. 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. January 1981 you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00573-07

    Original file (00573-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2007. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07529-07

    Original file (07529-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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. About four months later, on 2 November 1984, you were convicted by SPCM of a 48 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 63...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02371-06

    Original file (02371-06.rtf) 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.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 Marine Corps on 3 April 1979 at age 18. The discharge authority directed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11234-07

    Original file (11234-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2008. During this period of UA the BCD was approved at all levels of review, and on 19 September 1984 you were so discharged. 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 | CY2001 | 03764-01

    Original file (03764-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | 07537-03

    Original file (07537-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty for 45 days, which was suspended for six months, and reduction to paygrade E-2. Subsequently, the discharge authority directed discharge under other than honorable conditions, and on 21 June 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 prior honorable service in the National Guard, period of good service in the Marine Corps,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2679-13

    Original file (NR2679-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2014. 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...