DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20376-5100
TUR
Docket No: 1784-09
11 January .2010
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 6 January 2010. 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 15 March 1980 at age 19 and began a
period of active duty on 1 May 1980. You served without
disciplinary incident until 4 June 1981, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP} for an 18 day period of unauthorized
absence (UA). ,
On 7 September 1982 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of four periods of UDA totalling 33 days and sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for 45 days and a $450 forfeiture of
pay. About seven months later, on 22 April 1983, you were
convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a 39 day period of UA
and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a $382
forfeiture of pay.
Subsequentiy, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense. At that time you waived your right to consult
with legal coungel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board {ADB). .On 10 May 1983 your commanding officer
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On
14 May 1983 the discharge authority approved this recommendation
and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than
honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 27 May 1983,
you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to upgrade your discharge. It also
considered your explanation regarding the reasons for your
enlisting in the Navy. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct which resulted in NUP and two court-martial
convictions. Finally, you were given an opportunity to defend
yourself but waived your procedural right to present your case to
an ADB. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00082-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10773-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted two to one in favor of an under other than honorable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06032-01
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 28 June 1982 for The record reflects that you were advanced four years at age 21. to BTFA (E-2) and served without incident until 25 February 1983, when you were convicted by special court-martial of communicating You were sentenced to confinement at hard a threat and assault. On 8 April 1983 the convening authority approved the You were released from During the 16 month period from September 1983 to January 1985 Your offenses you received...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08019-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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 | CY2010 | 12208-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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. 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 | 07623-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00142-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 2003. On 16 October 1980 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. 2 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 | CY2010 | 05796-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11656-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on il August 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of one NUP...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03764-01
Your allegations of error and 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& appointed place of duty On 25 October 1983 vou received was On 15 November 1983 the BCD was to be executed, Subsequently, the suspension of the forfeitures and BCD were vacated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden‘is...