DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 10708-10
10 March 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 2 March 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
errer or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 9 July 1981.
You received nonjudicial punishment on seven occasions for
offenses that included three periods of unauthorized absence,
dereliction of duty, an unspecified violation of Article 134,
breaking restriction, failure to go to appointed place of duty,
breach of the peace, willful disobedience of a lawful order,
urinating on an interior command door, communicating a threat,
use of provoking words, assault, and drunk and disorderly
conduct. On 11 October 1984 you were convicted by civil
authorities of drunk driving. The court sentenced you to
confinement for 12 months and a fine of $500.00, both of which
were suspended.
On 14 November 1984 an administrative discharge board recommended
that you be separated from the Navy by reason of
misconduct/pattern of misconduct, with a discharge under other
than honorable conditions. The recommendation was approved by
the separation authority, and you were discharged on 24 December
1984 with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully considered
your contention to the effect that you had Charcot-Marie Tooth
syndrome which contributed to your acts of indiscipline, but
found it insufficient to warrant the approval of your request for
corrective action. In this regard, the Board was not persuaded
that there was any relationship between the syndrome and your
misconduct. 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.
Sincerely,
ies
W. ance
Executive ie or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00082-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06074-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 March 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 | 11360-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your _application on 9 August 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 29 October 1991 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01317-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 November 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 | CY2012 | 03979-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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. On 6 April 1984, your case was heard by the ADB and by a unanimous vote of 3-0 you were recommended for administrative separation with an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02346-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 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 | 05566-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2011. You also had two additional periods of UA totaling 37 days for which no disciplinary action was taken. 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 | 08115-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2011. On 24 February 1987, after appellate review, you received the BCD. 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 | CY2002 | 09615-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction df Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2003. The punishment imposed was forfeitures of $275 per month for two months and 45 days of restriction and extra duty On 22 April 1982 you were counseled concerning your past performance and warned that further misconduct could result in processing for a less than honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00270-11
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 discharge authority concurred and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of 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.