DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 00259-08
14 August 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 August 2008. your allegations of error and
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 29 July 1985, and served without
disciplinary incident until November 1985, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobeying a lawful order and
wrongful possession of a fire seal.
Shortly thereafter, you received the following disciplinary
actions: In October 1986, an NUP for unauthorized absence (UA),
in May 1987, another NJP for being UA again, and in September
1987, an NUP for UA and for disobeying a lawful order.
On 25 September 1987, you were notified of your processing for
administrative separation due to misconduct. You were advised of
your rights, however, you elected not to consult with counsel.
You were recommended for discharge under other than honorable
(UOTH) conditions due to a pattern of misconduct. On 5 October
1987, the discharge authority approved these recommendations and
directed a discharge under other than honorable conditions with
an RE-4 reenlistment code. In addition, in October 1987, you
were awarded another NUP for being UA while being processed for
separation. Finally, on 20 October 1987, you received a UOTH
discharge.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, post service conduct, and the passage of time.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant re-characterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your misconduct. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00373-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 01488-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2008. On 13 January 1988, you were discharged at the end of your enlistment and received an honorable discharge, and an RE-4 reenlistment code, due to your previous disciplinary actions. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8250 13
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 3 April 1987, you were advised that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) due to misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board found those factors insufficient to warrant changing the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00731-09
On 20 June 1988, you received NUP for wrongful use of marijuana and UA. Additionally, after your third NUP, you were counseled and warned that further | misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.. On 27 June 1988, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. Board.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01395-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2008. On 20 January 1986, you were notified of your processing for administrative separation due to your misconduct with a recommendation for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. 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 | CY2010 | 00569-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 2010. On 25 March 1986, 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 | CY2008 | 00353-08
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 November 1979, you received a special court- martial (SPCM) and were found guilty of four specifications of UA. 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 | 01876-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2008. You were notified of your processing for administrative separation due to misconduct with a recommendation for an under other than honorable (UOTH) conditions discharge. 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 | CY2012 | 00286-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 2012. 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 9 May 1986, you received NUP for being UA for one day.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05803-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 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. The Board concluded that the discharge by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure and a correction to your record is not warranted.