Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07028-08
Original file (07028-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
, 2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20376-5100 .

 

SON
Docket No: 07028-08
5 June 2008

 

This is in referénce 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 2 June 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.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 12 August 1987 at age 18. On 12 May 1988, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for 13 days of unauthorized absence
(UA). On 24 May 1988, you were convicted by summary court-
martial (SCM) of 16 specifications of failure to go to your
appointed place of.duty. On 24 June and 9 August 1988, you.
received NUP for four days of UA, wrongful use of government
services.

On 30 August 1988, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a
statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge
board (ADB). Your commanding officer forwarded his
recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct. On 9 September 1988 the
separation authority directed an other than honorable discharge
by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On

15 September 1988 you were so discharged.
You elected to consult with legal counsel and requested an
administrative discharge board (ADB). Subsequently, on 11 May
1992, an ADB unanimously found that you had committed misconduct
due to a pattern of misconduct, and recommended discharge under
other than honorable conditions. Additionally, during the
proceeding, you confessed to the pending larceny charge involving
the Navy Exchange. On 19 May 1992, your commanding officer
concurred with the ADB and forwarded your case to the discharge
authority for review and stating, in part, that you had been
counseled on numerous occasions concerning lack of judgment, poor
performance, and lack of initiative. On 26 May 1992, the
discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by.
reason of misconduct. On 29 May 1992 you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, overall
record of service. . Nevertheless, the Board found that these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge given your record of three NUP’s and conviction by SCM.
Further, you waived the right to an ADB, your best chance for
retention or a better characterization of service. Further, you
waived the right to an ADB, your best chance for retention ora
better characterization of service. 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,

Nan R
Executive Di tox

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08810-07

    Original file (08810-07.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 found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of two NUP’s, one of which was imposed after you were counseled and warned of the consequences of further misconduct, and conviction by SCM for period of UA...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08852-07

    Original file (08852-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warning that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04219-11

    Original file (04219-11.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 January 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 | CY2008 | 03967-08

    Original file (03967-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 January 2008. You waived your right to consult with counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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 | 03224-12

    Original file (03224-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2013. 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 | CY2008 | 06984-08

    Original file (06984-08.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. 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 29 December 1992, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13188-09

    Original file (13188-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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 | CY2013 | NR8344 13

    Original file (NR8344 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 9 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. on 20 August 1986, you received NUP for breaking restriction.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09919-07

    Original file (09919-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Records, sitting in executive session, application on 25 November 2008. Documentary material considered by the Boar your application, together with all material submit thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes and policies. On 30 May 1990 discharge authority directed an other than honorabl reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious 31 May 1990 you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04193-07

    Original file (04193-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 February 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 found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of...