Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04571-09
Original file (04571-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TAL
Docket No: 4571-09
26 March 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 17 March 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
injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 24
July 1989 at age 20. .On 16 February, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for assault and drunk and disorderly conduct.
You were counseled and warned that further misconduct could
result in administrative discharge action. On 31 July 1991, you
received NUP for drunk and disorderly conduct. You were again
counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in
administrative discharge action. On 25 November 1991, you
received NIP for destruction of government property and drunk and
disorderly conduct. Again, you were counseled and warned that
further misconduct could result in administrative discharge
action... On 2 December 1991, you were the subject of a medical
evaluation that diagnosed you as alcohol dependent. It was
recommended you attend the Navy Level III or Level II, alcohol
rehabilitation program. On 8 January 1992, you received NUP for
unauthorized absence (UA) from your appointed place of duty. On
6 February 1992, you received NUP for drunken operation of a
vehicle. On 6 February 1992, you were notified of pending
administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a
pattern of misconduct. After consulting with legal counsel, you
elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board
(ADB). On 24 February 1992, you were convicted in civil court of
drunk driving in Hanford California Municipal court and sentenced
to two days in jail, three years probation, fined $1,464 and 40
hours of community service. .On 31 March 1992, an.ADB unanimously
found that you had committed misconduct and recommended discharge
under other than honorable (OTH) conditions due to a pattern of
misconduct. On 14 April 1992, your commanding officer concurred
with the ADB and forwarded your case to the discharge authority
for review. On 21 May 1992, the separation authority directed an
OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. On 11 July 1992 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 five NJP’s, and a civil conviction of which was
imposed after you were counseled and warned repeatedly of the
consequences of further misconduct. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03809-08

    Original file (03809-08.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. Based on verification of your date of discharge by the Navy Personnel Command (Pers-312D1), on 5 July 1992, you were so discharged. 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 | CY2007 | 10216-07

    Original file (10216-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 December 1991, you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 7 August 1992, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11360-10

    Original file (11360-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your _application on 9 August 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. On 29 October 1991 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06756-09

    Original file (06756-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2010. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01237-11

    Original file (01237-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07239-08

    Original file (07239-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 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 April 1983, you were counseled regarding your unsatisfactory performance and conduct, advised that the command would assist you with alcohol...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03688-08

    Original file (03688-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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 28 August 1991, the discharge authority directed an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05757-10

    Original file (05757-10.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. Finally, the Board also noted on 5 June 1987 you were offered the right to request in-patient alcohol rehabilitation treatment from the Veterans Administration Hospital nearest your home, but signed a waiver refusing treatment. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2933-13

    Original file (NR2933-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05740-12

    Original file (05740-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 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...