DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 8848-08
20 July 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 14 July 2009. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 Navy on 14 November 1974 at age 17 and served
for nearly a year without disciplinary incident, but on 17
September and again on 21 October 1975, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of duty
and five periods of failure to go to your appointed place of
duty. Seven months later, on 15 June 1976, you received your
third NIP for wrongful possession of marijuana and drinking
alcoholic beverages in public.
During the period from 6 December 1976 to 14 February 1978 you
were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status on four occasions.
During this period you were also declared a deserted and
apprehended by civil authorities on two occasions. As a result
of the foregoing, on 9 June 1978, you were convicted by special
court-martial (SPCM) of four periods of UA totalling 369 days.
You were sentenced to hard labor for 75 days and restriction for
two months.
On 18 July 1978 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
After consulting with legal counsel you elected to present your
case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). However, on 19
July 1978, you waived your ADB in lieu of a recommendation for a
general discharge. Subsequently, your commanding officer
recommended you be issued a general discharge by reason of
misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature
with military authorities. However, the discharge authority
directed your commanding officer to issue you a general
discharge, the type warranted by your service record, and on 21
July 1978, you were so discharged.
Character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall
trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during
periodic evaluations. Your conduct average was 2.5, and an
average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your
separation for a fully honorable characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and your desire to upgrade your discharge. It also
considered your assertion that your request for a hardship
discharge had been granted. Nevertheless, the Board found the
evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repetitive and lengthy periods of UA which resulted in
three NUJPs and a court-martial conviction. Further, there is no
evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your
assertion. Finally, Sailors who are discharged after committing
multiple offenses normally receive discharges under other than
honorable conditions, and the Board concluded that you were very
fortunate to receive a general discharge. Accordingly, your
application has been denied.
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,
Laden SPeal
Executive Dir
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07560-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 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 | CY2011 | 00939-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken by civil authorities for this misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11345-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07443-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2009. Nonetheless, you waived your procedural right to present your case to an 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 | CY2009 | 09656-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02028-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. However, during the period from 16 May to 5 December 1975 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on six occasions for insubordination, disrespect, disobedience, communicating a threat, absence from your appointed place of duty, and four periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 15...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03316-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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. On 15 September 1982 the discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07289-09
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07289-09
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04042-11
On 11 January 1977 you received NUP for absence from your appointed place of duty and two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of the narrative reason for separation because of the seriousness of your repeated and frequent misconduct which resulted in nine NUJPs, counselling on several occasions for involvement of a discreditable...