DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 26370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 5054-09
22 March 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 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
16 April 1973 at age 17. Based on the information currently
contained in your record it appears you completed four weeks in
the 32™ Street Naval Station, Counseling and Assistance Center
(CAAC) program prior to being transferred to the Naval Drug
Rehabilitation Center (NDRC}, Miramar, California, on 6 January
1975. At the completion of your NDRC admission you were
diagnosed as being psychologically capable of completing your
military obligation. It was recommended that you be retained on
active duty. On 5 March 1975, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) for two instances of failure to obey a lawful
regulation (possession of marijuana). On 3 December 1975, you
received NJP again for failure to obey a regulation (possession
of marijuana). On 27 August 1976, you received NIP for two
instances of unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit. On 29
September 1976, you were notified that administrative separation
action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with civil/military
authorities. You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a
statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge
board (ADB). On 1 October 1976, the- suspended reduction in rate
awarded at NJP on 27 August 1976 was vacated due to your.
continued misconduct. On 1 October 1976, you received NIP for UA
from your unit for a period of 12 days. On 1 November 1976, you
were admitted to the Naval Regional Medical Center, Long Beach,
California, with a diagnosis of chronic alcoholism. You
completed two weeks of education and rehabilitation which
included attending Alcohol Anonymous (AA) meetings and a
medically supervised antabuse and multiple vitamin regimen, On 9
December 1976, your commanding officer forwarded his
recommendation that you be discharged for misconduct under other
than. honorable (OTH) conditions. On 28 December 1976 the
separation authority directed that you be separated for
misconduct with a general discharge.
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 four NUP’s. The Board also believed that you were
fortunate to receive a general discharge since a separation under
OTH conditions is often directed when a Sailor is separated for
misconduct. Finally, the Board noted that you waived the right
to an ADB, your best chance for retention or a better
characterization of service. 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,
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dil or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02697-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. paygrade E-l, 45 days of restriction and extra 18, The punishment imposed was a On 23 March 1976 you were screened for drug use and admitted that between February 1972 until February 1976 that you used marijuana daily,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03870-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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, reguiations, 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 | 04685-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 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. On 19 December 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a four day period of unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit and dereliction of duty.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01889-09
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06287-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05281-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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. After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4009 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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 | CY2008 | 02601-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 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 30 May 1978, you were convicted by a summary court-martial of the 39 day period of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00210-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 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 | CY2012 | 01526 12
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...