DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5141 oo SIN
Docket No: 01358-09
22 December 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 15 December 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
25 August 1988 at age 19. On 12 September 1989, you were
-eonvicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of 82 days of
unauthorized absence (UA). On 2 July 1990, you were convicted by
special court-martial (SPCM) of 87 days of UA, and wrongful
appropriation of a motorcycle. You were sentenced to confinement,
a reduction in paygrade, and a forfeiture of pay. On 13 August
1990, 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 20
September 1990, your commanding officer forwarded his
‘recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct. On 2 October 1990, the
discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by
reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On
19 October 1990 you were SO discharged.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of your SCM and SPCM convictions for periods of
UA totaling over five months. Further, the Board noted that 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.
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,
Lah. 1
W. DEAN PFE
Executive B r
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2728-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 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 of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02220-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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 30 July 1990, the ADB recommended separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05767-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on i8 May 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. On 4 February 1992 you were again convicted by SCM of a 28 day period of UA.
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07515-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 February 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a An ADB recommended you be issued a After consulting with legal However, the discharge authority...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00477 12
On 4 May 1990, you were UA for three days, with no disciplinary action taken. On 5 September and 1 October 1990, you were UA one day each, and no disciplinary action was taken against you. On 8 July 1991, you were UA again for one day and no disciplinary action was taken.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09637-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval. -Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail 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 material error or injustice.
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 | CY2011 | 02245-11
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 did-not consider whether to upgrade your discharge or change the reason for separation because you have not exhausted your administrative remedy of applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8241 13
-A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 August 2014. The Board, in its review of your application, considered all potentially mitigating factors present in your case. 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.