Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08424-10
Original file (08424-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TUR
Docket No: 8424-10
24 June 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 21 June 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 10 September 1981 at age 18 and
served without disciplinary incident until 24 September 1982,
when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP} for disobedience,
two specifications of disrespect, and two specifications of
failure to obey a lawful order. Shortly thereafter, on 19
November 1982, you received NUP for two specifications of

disrespect, failure to obey a lawful order, and communicating a
threat.

On 6 May 1983 you received NUP for disrespect and failure to obey
a lawful order. The punishment imposed was restriction and extra
duty for 15 days and a $100 forfeiture of pay. Subsequently, you
were notified of pending administrative separation action by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel
and to present your case to an administrative discharge board
(ADB). On 6 June 1983 your commanding officer recommended
discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due
to a pattern of misconduct and frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military authorities. On 10 June 1983
you received your fourth NUP for three periods of failure to go
to your appointed place of duty. On 18 June 1983 the discharge
authority approved the foregoing recommendation and directed your
commanding officer to issue you a general discharge by reason of
misconduct, and on 24 June 1983, 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, desire to upgrade your discharge, and the passage of
time. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct which
resulted in four NUPs. Further, you were given an opportunity to
defend yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your
case to an ADB. Finally, no discharge is automatically upgraded
due solely to the passage of time. 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,
W. DEAN PRELT
Executive [Di tor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06346-07

    Original file (06346-07.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 April 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01634-09

    Original file (01634-09.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 25 May 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 7 June 1985, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06717-10

    Original file (06717-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. 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 | 04699-10

    Original file (04699-10.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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 76 day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00741-12

    Original file (00741-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 2012. 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 | CY2008 | 00653-08

    Original file (00653-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 September 2008. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your 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 | 11286-10

    Original file (11286-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After waiving your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03253-11

    Original file (03253-11.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 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 | CY2010 | 01616-10

    Original file (01616-10.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 31 March 1983 you received your third NUP for three periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, a one day period of UA, failure to obey a lawful order, and two specifications of sleeping on watch. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08590-08

    Original file (08590-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval and health records, applicable statutes, regulations and policies. On 3 August 1984, you were counseled regarding UA and disobeying lawful orders, and warned that further misconduct could result in disciplinary action or administrative separation. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...