DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 02957-0939
8 January 2010
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 16 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
“93 July 1992 at the age 19. On 5 May 1993, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for unauthorized absence (UA) from
your unit. On 9 July 1993, you received NUP for dereliction of
duty and disrespect to a senior petty officer. On 21 July 1993,
you received NUP for two instances of UA from your appointed place
of duty and failure to obey a lawful order. On 20 July 1993,
administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. You waived
your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement or have your
case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 21 July
1993, your commanding officer forwarded his recommendation that
you be discharged under other than honorable (OTH} conditions due
to misconduct. On 28 July 1993, the separation authority directed
an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. On 3 August 1993 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 given the seriousness of your misconduct. The
Board noted that you were counseled and warned concerning the
consequences of further misconduct. The Board also noted that
you waived the right to an ADB, your best opportunity for
retention or a better characterization of service. Finally,
concerning your alleged alcohol problem, there is no indication
in the record that such problem, if it existed at the time of
your service, was so serious as to mitigate your actions or
warrant recharacterization of your discharge. 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,
\Sdas
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dirac =~
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01894-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 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 16 April 1993, administrative discharge action was initiated by.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4415 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 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 | 03870-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3341-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 26 February 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of- your application, tegether 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 | CY2009 | 01892-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 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 25 August 1984, the separation authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01014-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application.on 9 November 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 | CY2013 | NR4276 13
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04345-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2013. 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 | CY2013 | NR2507-13
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 separation authority concurred and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 | 00731-09
On 20 June 1988, you received NUP for wrongful use of marijuana and UA. Additionally, after your third NUP, you were counseled and warned that further | misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.. On 27 June 1988, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. Board.