Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01271-10
Original file (01271-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 12 PL LO
19 October 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 19 October 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. You entered active duty in the Navy on 9
September 1987. You received nonjudicial punishment on four
occasions for unauthorized absence (five specifications), drunk
on duty, failure to obey a lawful order, and driving while
intoxicated. You were notified of pending administrative
separation processing with an other than honorable (OTH)
discharge due to misconduct (commission of a serious offense).
You elected to have your case heard by an administrative
discharge board (ADB), which met and found that you had
‘committed misconduct (commission of a serious offense), but
recommended that you be retained. Your concurred with the
ADB’s finding, but recommended an OTH discharge. The discharge
authority, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and

Reserve Affairs), approved the findings of the ADB, however,
she directed a general discharge due to misconduct (commission
of a serious offense). You were so discharged on 16 May 1990,

and assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention)
reenlistment code.

In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth,
remorse, and post service good conduct. However, the Board
ag orcrnces tha tyne general discharge should not be changed due
(Oo your numerous acts of misconduct. The Board noted that you
Bere fortunate’to receive a general characterization of
service, since Sailors who are administratively separated for
misconduct such as yours normally receive an OTH discharge. In
view of the above, your application has been denied. The names

and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon

request.
F

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,

\S\u& ;
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Diynesyor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00784-10

    Original file (00784-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01650-10

    Original file (01650-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 2010. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which met and found that you had committed misconduct (commission of a serious offense), but recommended that you receive a general discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08719-08

    Original file (08719-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. 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 | 00913-10

    Original file (00913-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 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 | 10524-09

    Original file (10524-09.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. On 9 September 1987, you were notified that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct (commission of a serious offense). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03384-09

    Original file (03384-09.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. On 20 August 1984, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | CY2009 | 04424-09

    Original file (04424-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 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. You requested an administrative discharge board (ADB).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04567-09

    Original file (04567-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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 27 June 1990, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00271-10

    Original file (00271-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2010. the Board did not;consider whether to upgrade your discharge or Change the reason for separation because you did not request such action, and you have not exhausted your administrative remedy of applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00345-10

    Original file (00345-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 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. The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 19 March 1984, after more than three years of honorable service.