DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 . SIN
Docket No: 09260-07
6 November 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 4 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 and began a period of active duty on
24 July 1979 at age 22. On 15 January and 1 May 1981, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for two periods of
unauthorized absence (UA) and disobedience. On 5 May 1981, you
were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in
administrative discharge action.
On 31 July 1981, administrative discharge action was initiated by
reason of convenience of the government due your marginal
performance. Your commanding officer (CO) stated, in part, that
you were an administrative burden, lacked initiative, and your
attitude in your professional and military responsibilities were
deficient. After being informed of your procedural rights, you
elected to submit statement in response to the administrative
discharge notification. Your CO forwarded your case, adding
that, you required constant supervision, had been counseled
repeatedly by your chain of command, and failed to respond
positively. You received a general discharge on 14 August 1981.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your
discharge given your record of two NJP’s and your failure to
respond to the counseling of your chain of command. 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, .
W. DEAN P R
Executive \D3 tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11077-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 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 29 January 1982, CMC did not approve the general discharge and authorized an OTH discharge, based on your repeated offenses for drug usage, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10927-07
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. The Board found that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the frequency of your misconduct and failure to respond to counseling. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08561-98
_( A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. Board concluded that the assigned reenlistment code in this case Accordingly, was harmless error and does not warrant removal. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02548-09
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 thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your 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 | CY2007 | 03943-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 January 2008. You received a general discharge on 21 August 1981. 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 | 00475-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 July 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. 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 | CY2006 | 09667-06
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.On 27 August 1979 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent. On 18 August 1981...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00102-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 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. It was recommended that you be retained on active duty and warned that further misconduct of drug use could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05504-07
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.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.On 24 September 1979, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 23 April 1981, you had NJP for absence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06320-06
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.The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 28 December 1981. However, the Board concluded...