DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 6165-10
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
INTMSLLeS .
You enlisted in the Navy on 16 September 1976 at age 20 and
immediately began a period of active duty. You served for about
five months without disciplinary incident, but on 17 February
1977, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for stealing
$387. The punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty for
45 days and a $374 forfeiture of pay. Shortly thereafter, on 24
February 1977, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA)
that was not terminated until 16 March 1977. As a result, you
were referred for trial by court-martial for this 22 day period
of UA. However, on 24 March 1977, you began another period of UA
that was not terminated until 3 January 1989. During this period
of UA totalling 4,239 days, you were also declared a deserter.
Your record contains an administrative remarks entry dated 23
January 1989 which states, in part, that the Navy declined to
prosecute you for the period of UA from 24 March 1977 to 3
January 1989 for “failure to toll the statute of limitations.”
However, this period of UA would continue to be considered lost
, cime for administrative purposes and would serve as the basis for
* the denial of femuneration. As such, you were to be discharged
* for misconduct” dug to commission of a serious offense and were
‘not recommended for reenlistment.
* Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense as evidenced by the foregoing period of UA
totalling 4,239 days. At that time you waived your right to
consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 26 January 1989 your
commanding officer recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of
a serious offense. On 20 February 1989 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 18 April 1989 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, post service conduct, desire to upgrade your
discharge, and the passage of time. It also considered your
assertion that your misconduct resulted from untreated acute
alcoholism. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your misconduct which resulted in
NIP, and your repetitive and lengthy periods of UA, which were
dismissed with prejudice to the government due to noncompliance
with the statute of limitations. Further, you were given an
opportunity to defend yourself but waived the procedural right to
present your case to an ADB. Finally, there is no evidence in
the record, and you provided none, to support your assertion of
alcoholism. 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,
Lo Ware
W. DEAN PFHIF
Executive Dinegvo
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07515-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 February 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a An ADB recommended you be issued a After consulting with legal However, the discharge authority...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1004 14
A. three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2015. 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 were so ‘discharge on 10 November 1992. : The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1004 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2015. 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, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04105-12
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. After waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present “your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), on 3 January 1989, your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7266 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 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 24 January 1989, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge ‘action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03038-10
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 | CY2006 | 04726-06
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 Naval Reserve on 30 January 1987 at age 18 and began a period of active duty on 6...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4892 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. During this period of UA you were also declared a deserter, however, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken for this 36 day...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02173-10
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 | CY2009 | 01702-09
A three-member: panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 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. Subsequently, the discharge authority directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct and on 8 August 1991 you...