Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03064-10
Original file (03064-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

Docket No: 3064-10
2 February 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 1 February 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 20 December 1989 at age 22 and began
a period of active duty on 17 January 1990. You served without
disciplinary incident until 12 March 1990, when you were
convicted by civil authorities of disturbing the peace. You were
sentenced to probation for three years, a $300 fine, and $30
restitution.

During the period from 16 to 19 July 1991 you were in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status for three days. The record does
not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this
misconduct. On 25 September and again on 12 December 1991, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a four day period of UA
and two specifications of disrespect.

In January 1992 you were processed for an administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. After waiving your procedural rights, your
commanding officer recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. Subsequently, the
discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed
your commanding officer to issue you a discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 4 February
1992, 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 ass@rtions that you were falsely accused and
were the subject @f. verbal abuse. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these fadkors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repetiti#7e misconduct which resulted in two NUPs and
conviction by civil authorities. Further, you were given an
opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your procedural right
to present your case to an administrative discharge board.
Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted
none, to support your assertions. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02686-10

    Original file (02686-10.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. 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 ifijuetice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02173-10

    Original file (02173-10.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 6 May 1992 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and alcohol rehabilitation failure. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04488-10

    Original file (04488-10.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 30 June 1992, you were so discharged. 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 | CY2013 | NR2510-13

    Original file (NR2510-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 2014. You were "80 discharged .On 29 October 1992. , Ce The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially’ mitigating factors, such as your record of service, post service accomplishments, character letters, and desire to upgrade your discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03224-12

    Original file (03224-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07589-10

    Original file (07589-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TUR Docket No: 7589-10 27 May 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. 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. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11889-10

    Original file (11889-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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 | 03443-10

    Original file (03443-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05765-09

    Original file (05765-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 May 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. After waiving your procedural rights, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06756-09

    Original file (06756-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2010. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...