DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMS
Docket No: 6162-08
19 March 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
18 March 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 19 April 1977, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. During the
period 13 September 1977 to 15 March 1978, you had nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) on three occasions. Your offenses included three
instances of unauthorized absence (UA) that totaled about ten days
and three instances of absence from your appointed place of duty.
During the period 4 April to 10 August 1978, you were in a UA status,
a period of about 128 days. On 11 August 1978, 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) discharge. During the period 23 April to
31 May 1979, you had NUP on two occasions and were convicted by a
special court-martial. Your offenses included a 128 day period of
UA, six instances of absence from your appointed place of duty, two
instances of violation of uniform regulations, three instances of
disobedience of a lawful order, and possession of marijuana.
On 4 June 1979, your commanding officer initiated administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable
involvement. 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 (ADP) .
On 6 August 1979, a drug disposition message stated that you were not
dependent on drugs and you were not granted a drug exemption. On
15 August 1979, the separation authority approved the recommendation
and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent
discreditable involvement. On 27 September 1979, you had NUP for two
instances for absence from your appointed place of duty, failure to
obey a lawful order, and two instances of UA totaling about six days.
On 10 October 1979, you were separated with an OTH discharge by
reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth,
desire for a better discharge, and regret for your actions. The
Board also considered the letters of recommendation that you
submitted with your application and your post service achievements.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your service due to the
seriousness of your repetitive misconduct. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 10041 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 July 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. 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 | 01905-07
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 9 July 1976, you enlisted in the Navy at age 20. On 1 May 1979, in connection with the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8945 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02687-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2008. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge, waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), and submitted a statement requesting an honorable discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08988-06
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 27 December 1974 you enlistedin the Navy at age 19. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07795-06
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 28 May 1976 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 18. During the period from 5 July to 28 July...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02619-09
On 3 July 1980, you received NUP for assault and breach of the peace. On 30 July 1980, the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement. 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 | 03980-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 January 2008. On 6 February 1980, the discharge authority directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. 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 | CY2009 | 02982-09
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 | CY2008 | 09073-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, reguiations, and policies. On 17 August 1979, your case was forwarded and on 28 August 1979, the separation authority directed your separation by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...