DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SJN
Docket No: 09050-08
29 July 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 21-duly 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on
1 July 1985 at age 19. On 14 February 1986, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for assault, a brief period of
unauthorized absence, and provoking speech or gestures. On
15 May 1986, you were convicted by special court-martial {SPCM)
of disobedience and assault. You were sentenced to confinement
at hard labor and a forfeiture of pay.
On 16 July 1986, administrative discharge action was initiated by
reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. You
waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement or have
your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On
17 July 1986, your commanding officer forwarded his
recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct. On 7 September 1986, the
discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by
reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense. On
12 September 1986 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of your NJP and conviction by SPCM for
serious offenses. Further, you waived the right to an ADB, your
best chance for retention or a 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.
Consequentiy, 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 | CY2007 | 07945-07
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. On 25 September 1986 the discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed an other than honorable discharge, and on 2 October 1986, you were so separated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03195-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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 | CY2008 | 10106-08
“BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 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 21 February 1990 the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12426-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 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 12 August 1987, the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06046-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03341-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2009. On 1 March 1988, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | 06983-08
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. The Board also noted that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge since a discharge under other than honorable conditions is often directed when an individual is discharged due to misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07072-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction’ of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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, . On 7 October 1986, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03199-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. Subsequentiy, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01317-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 2009. You elected to consult counsel and 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.