Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02576-08
Original file (02576-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX TRG
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No: 2576-08

17 December 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 9 December 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 26 January 1978 at age 19. During
the period from 22 June to 4 October 1979, you received
nonjudicial punishment on two occasions. Your offenses were
theft from the Navy Exchange and an unauthorized absence of less
than 24 hours. On 15 November 1979 you were counseled and warned
that continued misconduct could lead to a discharge under other
than honorable conditions. A special court-martial convened on
13 February 1980 and convicted you of wrongful appropriation of a
motorcycle. The sentence of the court included confinement at
hard labor, forfeitures of pay and a reduction in rate.

Based on the foregoing record you were processed for an
administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
At that time, you signed an agreement to waive having your case
heard by an administrative discharge board in exchange for a
recommendation for a general discharge. In accordance with this
agreement, the commanding officer recommended a general discharge
and on 10 April 1980 you were discharged. The character of
service, separation authority and separation code blocks (blocks
25, 26 and 28) of the DD Form 214 issued at that time were left
blank pending approval of your discharge by the separation
authority. After review, the separation authority directed a
general discharge by reason of substandard personal behavior.
Since you were already discharged, your command issued two DD
Form 215's to fill in the information in the blocks which were
left blank. Since you did not provide a copy of the DD Form 215
showing that you were discharged with a general discharge under
honorable conditions, a copy of that DD Form 215 is enclosed.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and contention
that you were told that your discharge would be automatically
upgraded to honorable after six months. However, there is no
provision in the law or regulations which would require
recharacterization of a discharge based solely on the passage of
a period of time. The Board found that these factors and
contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your discharge given your record of misconduct. Further, the
Board believed that you were fortunate to have received a general
discharge since a discharge under other than honorable conditions
could have resulted based on your record of misconduct. The
Board concluded that the general discharge was proper as issued
and no change is warranted.

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,

Deas

W. DEAN
Executive

 
 
  

 

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00267

    Original file (MD00-00267.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Block 24, Character of Service should read: “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS” vice “GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS).” The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. You should read Enclosure (5) of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06151-10

    Original file (06151-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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. You served without disciplinary incident until 6 July 1978, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02994-01

    Original file (02994-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dear 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 Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 15 November 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. during the nine month period from November 1979 to December...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02818-09

    Original file (02818-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval - Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02178-02

    Original file (02178-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, application on 14 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 2 convicted by summary court-martial On 19 February 1980, you were of an unauthorized absence from 25 January to 29 January 1980, a failure to go to appointed place of duty; period of four days; missing ship's movement; The punishment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09066-07

    Original file (09066-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00221

    Original file (MD00-00221.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: Failed to be at appointed place of duty on 1630, 3Feb98. The factual basis for this recommendation was applicant's violations of the UCMJ to include unauthorized absence, making and uttering false checks (thirteen offenses), dishonorable failure to pay a debt and failure of the Marine Corps weight control program. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02982-09

    Original file (02982-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 5 January 2010. On 26 March 1980, you were notified that administrative separation action. 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 | 01394-07

    Original file (01394-07.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. Your military record shows that you submitted a written request for a discharge under other than honorable conditions in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the 46 day period of unauthorized absence. The Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08198-07

    Original file (08198-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. Subsequently, in February 1980, you were processed for an administrative discharge by reason of convenience of the government in accordance with...