Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05804-08
Original file (05804-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SMS
Docket No: 5804-08
26 February 2009

 

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 25 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

On 19 October 1977, you enlisted in the Navy at age

18. On 13 June 1978, you had nonjudicial punishment for two
instances of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling about three
days. During the period 26 August to 6 October 1978, you were
in a UA status on four occasions totaling about 13 days. On or
about 3 October 1978, you received a medical evaluation and
were admitted for a psychiatric evaluation because of a
suicidal gesture. There is no record of treatment or
psychiatric evaluation in the record. During the period

6 October 1978 to 25 January 1979, you were ina UA status on
10 occasions totaling about 79 days. On 1 February 1979, you
were warned that further infractions could result in
disciplinary action or an other than honorable (OTH) discharge.

During the period 8 February 1979 to 14 April 1980, you were in
a UA status on two occasions totaling about 392 days. Based on
the information currently contained in the record, it appears
that you subsequently requested an OTH discharge for the good
of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the two
instances of UA totaling 392 days. Apparently, the separation
authority approved your request for an OTH discharge. On

21 May 1980, you were separated with an OTH discharge for the
good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial. As a
result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-
martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive
discharge and confinement at hard labor.

The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully
considered all potential mitigation, such as your youth. The
Board also considered your contentions that your roommates were
a bad influence and you were assaulted several times. The
Board also considered the statement provided by your friend.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your service due to
the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct. Regarding your
contentions, there is no evidence in the record to support
them. Furthermore, the Board believed that considerable
clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to
avoid trial by court-martial was approved. The Board also
concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with
the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and you
should not be permitted to change it now. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05736-08

    Original file (05736-08.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 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. The Board also concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06128-08

    Original file (06128-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 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 | CY2006 | 04860-06

    Original file (04860-06.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. The record does show that a psychiatric evaluation diagnosed you with a personality disorder and prescribed appropriate treatment, but you began a period of UA several months later. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR0221-13

    Original file (NR0221-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 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. Based on the information currently contained in your record it appears that you submitted a written request for an other than honorable - (OTH)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05743-08

    Original file (05743-08.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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3342-13

    Original file (NR3342-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1980, you made a written request for an other _ than honorable (OTH) discharge to-avoid trial by court-martial for three instances of UA from your unit for a period totaling 30 days, failure to go to you appointed place of duty, . ‘The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as recharacterization of your. when your request for.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08466-10

    Original file (08466-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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 | CY2007 | 07268-07

    Original file (07268-07.rtf) 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.On 15 September 1977, you enlisted in the Navy at age 17. On 17 October 1982, you began another UA...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03726-10

    Original file (03726-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08262-00

    Original file (08262-00.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three—member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 May 2001. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contention were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of three NJPs and special court—martial conviction, and the fact that you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for two prolonged periods of UA totalling nearly a year. Consequently, when...