Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12828-09
Original file (12828-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TUR
Docket No: 12828-09
15 September 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 14 September 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
iimjustice:

You enlisted in the Navy on 25 April 1989 at age 18 and began a
period of active duty on 30 August 1989. You served without
disciplinary incident until 28 June 1990, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed
place of duty.

On 15 December 1992 you received NJP for an unspecified period of
unauthorized absence (UA), insubordination, and misbehavior as a
sentinel. The following year, on 9 April 1993, you received NJP
for disrespect.

Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. At that time you waived your rights to consult with
legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB). On 10 April 1993 your commanding officer
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 19 April
1993 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and
directed separation under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct and on 19 May 1993 you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to upgrade your discharge so that you may
obtain veterans’ benefits and employment in the field of law
enforcement. “Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
hwere not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your

* discharge because of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in
three NUPs. 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,

Ww. PFE IFES
Executive Di ©

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04345-12

    Original file (04345-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | NR4415 13

    Original file (NR4415 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 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 | CY1999 | 06590-09

    Original file (06590-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail 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 | CY2007 | 03496-07

    Original file (03496-07.rtf) 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.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 13 September 1985 at age 19. Nevertheless, the Board found that these...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11178-08

    Original file (11178-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    application on 14 October 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned on more than one oecasion, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12120-09

    Original file (12120-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 2010. On 13 July 1993, you were notified that administrative discharge procedures were initiated and that you would receive a general discharge and reenlistment code of RE-4 upon your separation. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of a general discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05735-09

    Original file (05735-09.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. The Board noted you were counseled and warned after your first NUP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | 03175-09

    Original file (03175-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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 9 November 1990 you received NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06143-10

    Original file (06143-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 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 | CY2011 | 04505-11

    Original file (04505-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...