DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 3921-09
16 April 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 14 April 2010. 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
imjustiLeé..
You reenlisted in the Navy on 8 December 1989. On 6 September
1990, you were convicted in the municipal court of the city of
St Marys, Georgia, of driving under the influence (DUI) and
driving with a suspended license. You were sentenced to 90 days
confinement or $1010.00 fine and loss of your driver’ es license
for one year. On 28 September 1990, administrative discharge
action was initiated to separate you by reason of civil
conviction. You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a
statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge
board (ADB). On 22 February 1971, your commanding officer
forwarded his recommendation that you be discharged under other
than honorable (OTH) conditions due to civil conviction. On 12
October 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for a period of 24 days
and missing ship’s movement. On 6 November 1990, the separation
authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of eivail
conviction. On 16 November 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 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 that
resulted in a civil conviction. Finally, members of the armed
services who are convicted by civil authorities may be
discharged. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
The Board noted that you may be eligible for benefits with the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) based on your prior
honorable service. Please contact your local DVA for a
determination regarding benefits.
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 | CY2009 | 12219-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 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. 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 | 08836-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 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 | CY2010 | 01935-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 2010. On 13 October 1983, you received your third NJP for an additional UA period. On 27 January 1984, you received the OTH discharge due to misconduct (drug abuse).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3612 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. On 22 July 1993, you received a third NJP for UA and wrongful use of cocaine.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00064-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. 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 | CY2002 | 03530-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You were sentenced to confinement During the period from 1 to 13 March 1956 you were convicted by civil authorities of failure to appear, two day period of UA. 2 Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00967-10
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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. fonsequently, 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 | CY2007 | 07508-07
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.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 19 March 1990 at age 25. on 3 April 1990 you were convicted by civil...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05741-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2008. On 15 January 1990, you began a UA that ended on 3 February 1990, a period of about 19 days. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02430-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navel Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ’ application .on 12 January 2010. On 22 January 1981, your commanding officer forwarded your case to the discharge authority recommending an other than honorable discharge. 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.