Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04310-08
Original file (04310-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SMS
Docket No: 4310-08
5 February 2009

 

Code, section 1552.

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

4 February 2009. 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.

On 18 January 1982, you enlisted in the Navy at age 20. On

11 March 1983, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for assault. On
10 August 1983, you received a medical evaluation which indicated
that you had a provisional diagnosis of having a paranoid schizoid
personality. On 24 August 1983, you received a psychiatric
evaluation during which you received a personality test that was
invalidated by your attempt to appear to be more emotionally
distressed than you actually were. The evaluation diagnosed you as
having mixed personality traits, and antisocial and avoidant with
tension headaches. On 26 August 1983, you had NJP for leaving your
post. On 8 September 1983, you were counseled regarding deficiencies
in your performance and conduct and warned that further infractions
could result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable (OTH)
discharae. On 29 October 1983, you had NUP for two instances of
failure to obey a lawful order.

On 4 November 1983, your commanding officer initiated administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation
could result in an OTH discharge and waived the right to have your
case heard by an adteinistrative discharge beard (ADB).
On 15 December 1983, the separation authority approved the discharge
recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct
due to a pattern of misconduct. On 20 December 1983, you were sO

discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth.

The Board also considered your contentions that you failed to
understand the term "remorse" when asked during an NJP and that you
were diagnosed as being a paranoid schizophrenic on 5 October 2004,
which you believe was untreated at the time of your service and
affected your ability to serve. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that
continued even after you were warned that further infractions could
result in an OTH discharge. Regarding your contentions, there is no
evidence in the record to indicate that you failed to understand your
NJP proceedings and you did not appeal any of them. Regarding your
post-service diagnosis as being a paranoid schizophrenic, you
provided no evidence to support it other than your statement. The
Board also noted that you waived the right to have your case heard by
an ADB, your best opportunity for retention or a more favorable
characterization of service. Therefore, the Board concluded that the
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,

t
W. ee PFE
Executive Dir&ot

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08555-08

    Original file (08555-08.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 May 2009. 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. On 17 July 1985, you had NUP for another unspecified period of UA and were warned that further infractions could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05807-08

    Original file (05807-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08476-08

    Original file (08476-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 May 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 | CY2007 | 10122-07

    Original file (10122-07.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. During the period 12 November 1982 to 18 February 1983, you had three NUP's. 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 | 10123-07

    Original file (10123-07.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued after you were repeatedly warned that further infractions could result in an OTH discharge. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01911-08

    Original file (01911-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors and your belief were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02177-08

    Original file (02177-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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. On 10 May 1985, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01913-08

    Original file (01913-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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 | CY2008 | 00634-08

    Original file (00634-08.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. In connection with this processing, you would have acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge and it appears that you waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01737-80

    Original file (01737-80.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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your misconduct that continued...