DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TOR
Docket No: 3030-10
26 January 2011
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 25 January 2011. 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 17 November 1983 at age 18 and served
for about ten months without disciplinary incident. However,
during the period from 6 September to 17 October 1984, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four occasions for two
specifications of wrongful use of marijuana, five periods of
absence from your appointed place of duty, failure to go to your
appointed place of duty, and breaking restriction.
On 1 November 1984 you were convicted by summary court-martial
(SCM) of four periods of absence from your appointed place of
duty and failure to obey a lawful order by consuming alcoholic
beverages aboard your ship. Subsequently, you were notified of
pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct
due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with
military authorities, a pattern of misconduct, and drug abuse.
After waiving your procedural rights to legal counsel and an
administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military authorities, a pattern of
misconduct, and drug abuse. Shortly thereafter, 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 29 November 1984, 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. It also
considered your assertion that you were given an option to
receive a medical discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repeated
misconduct which resulted in four NUPs and a SCM. Further, you
were given an opportunity to defend yourself and possibly obtain
a better characterization of service, but chose to waive your
procedural right to present your case to an ADB. Finally, there
is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support
your assertion. 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,
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02229-09
the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 23 April 1985 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 30 April 1985, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10254-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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 | CY2010 | 06151-10
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. You served without disciplinary incident until 6 July 1978, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04042-11
On 11 January 1977 you received NUP for absence from your appointed place of duty and two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of the narrative reason for separation because of the seriousness of your repeated and frequent misconduct which resulted in nine NUJPs, counselling on several occasions for involvement of a discreditable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03253-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 January 2012. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, post service conduct, desire to upgrade the characterization of your discharge, and assertion that you were told that your discharge would be upgraded seven years after your separation. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR497 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2013. After waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities and drug abuse. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00939-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken by civil authorities for this misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07538-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2009. On 7 December 1984 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03048-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2011. 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 received two more NUPs on 24 January and 18 February 1983 for falsifying an official document, a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA), and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04701-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...