DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 09827-10
22 June 2011
This is in reference to your application for correction of your .
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the 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 June 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, 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 5 November 1985 after serving over
nine years of honorable service. The Board found that on
26 May 1992, you submitted a written request for an other than
honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for
six specifications of assault, seven specifications of committing
a crime or offense not capital in violation of a state of Hawaii
statute (endangerment of the welfare of a minor), and two
specifications of attempting to injure yourself by pouring
lighter fluid on your chest and striking a cigarette lighter, and
holding a knife to your stomach while struggling with your wife.
Prior to submitting this request for discharge, you conferred
with a qualified military lawyer, were advised of your rights,
and were warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting
such a discharge. Subsequently, your request for discharge was
granted and, on 10 July 1992, you received an other than
honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. As a
result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-
martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive
digcharge and confinement at hard labor.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable
service, awards and decorations, and last period of service.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or
changing the reason for your discharge given your misconduct that
resulted in charges being preferred to a court-martial for very
serious offenses, and request for discharge. The Board believed
that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request
for discharge was approved. The Board also concluded that you
received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your
request for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to
change it now. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
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.
LYS
a Dons P
Executive D
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10603-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, reguiations, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12214-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August. Your request for discharge was granted and, on 21 January 1992, you received an OTH discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your NUP and SPCM for periods of UA, and last period of UA that lasted over four years.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04203-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. You then requested a discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01418-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 October 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 25 June 1982 you began a period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended by civil authorities.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04830-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01690-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 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. 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 | 04847-10
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden 1s on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06882-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 March 2011. You are advised that no discharge is upgraded due merely to post service good conduct or the passage of time. 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 | 06371-10
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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 19 March 1952, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02686-10
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. 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...