DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

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

 

TUR
Docket No: 10742-09
12 August 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 10 August 2010. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 on 10 December 1990 at age 18 and
served without disciplinary incident until 16 September 1991,
when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from
your appointed place of duty.

Your record reflects that during the period from 13 April to 21
May 1992 you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for 38
days. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary
action taken, if any, for this period of UA. Your record further
reflects that in June 1992 you were convicted by special court-
martial (SPCM) of disrespect, assault, insubordination, using
provoking speech or gestures, and disorderly conduct. You were
sentenced to an unspecified period of confinement and a bad
conduct discharge (BCD). On 3 June 1992 you submitted a written
request for appellate leave. However, it appears that you began
another period of UA that was not terminated until you were
returned to military authorities on 4 September 1992. On 11
December 1992, after being counselled for being absent from your
appointed place of duty, your request for appellate leave was
approved. Subsequently, the BCD was approved at all levels of
review, and on 12 May 1993 you were issued a BCD.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
mrisyouth and desire to tipgrade your discharge. Nevertheless,

fwaese factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
Weyour discharge. ba@timse of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct’ and#kengthy periods of UA from the Navy. Accordingly,
your application has been denied.

oe FR aR

‘Tt 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,

Owen 3
W. D PFE
Executive Diyedtor
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TUR

Decket No: 10736-09
12 August 20106

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 10 August 2010. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.

BEter 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 22 June 1987 at age 17 and served for
nearly five years without disciplinary incident. Your record
reflects that on 20 October 1991 you were placed in an alcohol
rehabilitation aftercare program upon completion of Level IIT
treatment.

On 20 August 1992 you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for
assault, two specifications of communicating a threat, wrongful
destruction of government property, and two specifications of
disrespect. The punishment imposed was reduction to paygrade E-3
and a $1,042 forfeiture of pay. Subsequently, you were notified
of pending administrative separation action by reason o£
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. At that time
you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to
present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On
17 September 1992 your commanding officer recommended discharge
under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due
to commission of a serious offense. On 28 September 1992 the
discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed
your commanding officer to discharge you under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 5 October
1992 you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
jcarefully weighed'all potentially mitigating factors, such as

Your youth, desire to upgrade your discharge, and your

@orrespondence reghrding alleged unjust actions. It also
“considered your assertion that your discharge was unjust because
4: Occurred during a time when military bases were closing and a
Teduction in military forces was in effect. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repetitive misconduct. Further, you were given an
opportunity to defend your actions, but waived your procedural
right to present your case to an ADB. Accordingly, your

application has been denied.

    
 

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 >Se
Executive D c