Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01892-09
Original file (01892-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5106

 

TAL

Docket No: 01892-09
30 November 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 18 November 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

5 October 1981 at age 18. On 4 August 1982, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobeying a lawful order and

a two day period of unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit. On
18 August 1982, you received NUP for UA from your appointed place
of duty. On 24 June 1983, you were convicted at a special court-
martial of a 37 day period of UA. On 11 August 1983, you
received NIP for 12 instances of disobeying a superior officer.
On 22 April 1984, you received NUP for a seven day period of UA.
On 15 May 1984, you received NUP for seven instances of UA from
your appointed place of duty. Additionally, after your fourth
NIP, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could
result in administrative discharge action. On 9 July 1984, you
were notified of pending administrative separation action by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. You elected
to consult with legal counsel and subsequently requested an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 14 July 1984, an ADB
unanimously found that you had committed misconduct due to a
pattern of misconduct and recommended discharge under. other than
honorable (OTH) conditions. Subsequently, your commanding
officer concurred with the ADB and forwarded your case to the
discharge authority for review. On 25 August 1984, the
separation authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 21 September 1984
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 found that
_these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct.
Finally, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that
allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the
passage of time. 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,

\Sea SSA 00
W. DEAN PF R
Executive Diz or

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03787-09

    Original file (03787-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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 | CY2009 | 02617-09

    Original file (02617-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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. Additionally, after your third NJP, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02177-08

    Original file (02177-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 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. On 10 May 1985, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03729-10

    Original file (03729-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of thé Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2011. Additionally, after your third NJP, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | 04122-08

    Original file (04122-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 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 8 June 1985, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct due...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00949-10

    Original file (00949-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your NUP and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03514-11

    Original file (03514-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 2012. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your first NUP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | 04237-09

    Original file (04237-09.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. You waived your rights to consult 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02653-09

    Original file (02653-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-membér panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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 1 February 1985, the | separation authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12365-08

    Original file (12365-08.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. On 23 March 1985, 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...