Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11198-07
Original file (11198-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TUR
Docket No: 11198-07
14 November 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 13 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 25 August 1989 at age 19 and served
without disciplinary incident until 10 December 1991, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two periods of absence
from your appointed place of duty, disrespect, and two
specifications of disobedience. The punishment imposed was
restriction and extra duty for 30 days, a $200 forfeiture of pay,
and reduction to paygrade E-2, which was suspended for six
months. However, in January 1992, the suspended punishment was
vacated due to your continued misconduct, and on 31 January and
again on 18 February 1992 you received NUP for five periods of
failure to go to your appointed place of duty, two specifications
of dereliction of duty, and wrongful use of marijuana.

On 20 February 1992 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct and commission of a serious offense as evidenced by
drug abuse. After consulting with legal counsel you elected to
present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On
26 February 1992 an ADB recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. On 12 March 1992 your commanding officer, in
concurrence with the ADB, also recommended an other than
honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. On 28 March 1992 1985 the discharge authority
approved these recommendations, and on 8 April 1992 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 assertion that your discharge was unjust because
of the death of your twin and time to mourn his death was not
taken into consideration. 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 NUPs and included drug abuse.
Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted
none, to support your assertion. 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 ea S
Executive Dire

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02464-08

    Original file (02464-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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 | CY2008 | 08824-08

    Original file (08824-08.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. On 13 March 1992 your commanding officer recommended discharge 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2933-13

    Original file (NR2933-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03654-09

    Original file (03654-09.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. However, by a vote of two to one, the ADB recommended that the discharge be suspended for 12 months. 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 | 02669-08

    Original file (02669-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. On 6 November 1984, you were discharged with an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11357-10

    Original file (11357-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 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 | CY2010 | 06732-10

    Original file (06732-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 April 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 | CY2009 | 12318-09

    Original file (12318-09.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. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01971-08

    Original file (01971-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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 | CY2012 | 05740-12

    Original file (05740-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2013. 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...