Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06143-10
Original file (06143-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
ar Wea os
Saar

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

   

  
 

   

ahh
a

al
TUR
Docket No: 6143-10

8 April 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 5 April 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 29 April 1989 at age 20 and began a
period of active duty on 11 July 1989. You served without
disciplinary incident until 4 March 1992, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobedience and six periods of
unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 30 days. You were also ina
UA status during the period from 27 to 30 March 1992, but no
disciplinary action was taken for this misconduct. On 1 June
1992 you were convicted by civil authorities of two counts of
possession of and carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon and
carrying a loaded firearm in public. You were sentenced to a
$455 fine and probation for six months. From 4 to 6 July 1992
you were again in a UA status for which no disciplinary action
was taken. Shortly thereafter, on 3 September 1992, you received
your second NUP for 13 specifications of absence from your

fa

appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order.
On 21 January 1993 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a

serious offense and conviction by civil authorities. After
consulting with legal counsel you elected your right to present
your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 28

January 1993 an ADB recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of defective enlistment due to
fraudulent entry and misconduct due to civil conviction and
commission of a serious offense. On 19 February 1993 your
commanding officer, in concurrence with the ADB, also recommended
discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of
@efective enistmemt and misconduct. During the period from 2 to
5 March 1993 you were in a UA status for the third time. On 23
.March 1993 the discharge authority approved these recommendations
zand directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than
honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 4 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. Nevertheless,
the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repetitive misconduct in both the military and civilian
communities. 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 | CY2002 | 05204-02

    Original file (05204-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted and applicable statutes, regulations and Your allegations of error and After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01582-08

    Original file (01582-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and elected to have your case heard by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07352-06

    Original file (07352-06.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 April 2007. 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 | 05767-09

    Original file (05767-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on i8 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. On 4 February 1992 you were again convicted by SCM of a 28 day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03038-10

    Original file (03038-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 7itting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 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. On 5 December 1994 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reaton of misconduct due to commission of a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3612 13

    Original file (NR3612 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 22 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. On 22 July 1993, you received a third NJP for UA and wrongful use of cocaine.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07221-07

    Original file (07221-07.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.On 4 May 1988, you enlisted in the Navy at age 23.On 23 August 1988, you had nonjudicial punishment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10654-10

    Original file (10654-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 2011. 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08810-07

    Original file (08810-07.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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of two NUP’s, one of which was imposed after you were counseled and warned of the consequences of further misconduct, and conviction by SCM for period of UA...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00369-11

    Original file (00369-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...