DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Ae
TUR
Docket No: 11286-10-
4 August 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 2 August 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 ali
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 20 March 1980 at age 19 and
immediately began a period of active duty. You served for about
seven months without disciplinary incident, however, on 23
October and again on 4 December 1980, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) for wrongful possession and use of marijuana,
wrongful entry into an unauthorized space, and disrespect.
During the period from 5 January to 3 November 1981 you received
NIP on five more occasions. Your offenses were failure to obey a
lawful order, wrongful possession and use of marijuana,
disobedience, disrespect, seven periods of absence from your
appointed place of duty, and two specifications of assault. On 7
November 1981 you were referred for a medical evaluation due to
your history of marijuana use. You were directed to participate
tn a rehabilitation program, but refused to participate stating,
in part, that you did not have a problem with drugs or alcohol.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation
by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military authorities and drug abuse.
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 nature with military
authorities and drug abuse as evidenced by multiple NUPs, refusal
to participate in treatment and counselling, and continuing
decline in duty performance. On 8 January 1982 you received your
eighth NUP for a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and
disobeying a lawful order. The punishment imposed was bread and
water for three days. Shortly thereafter, the discharge
authority approved the foregoing recommendation and directed your
commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge
by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military authorities and drug abuse,
and on 22 January 1982, 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, 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 misconduct and repetitive drug
related offenses. Finally, you were given an opportunity to
defend yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your
case to an ADB. 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,
ant.
W. DEAN EB R
Executiv ector
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12523 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02971-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 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. As a result, on 30 September 1982, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to hold your separation in abeyance pending...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04498-09
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 12 September 1980, you received NUP for 16 periods of failure to go to your appointed place of duty and a 20 day period of UA. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04128-12
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 February 1980 you were advised that administrative separation action had been initiated by reason of misconduct, but held in abeyance pending a medical evaluation for alcohol abuse. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two months, a $598 forfeiture of pay, and a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03811-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03349-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2002. 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. At that time you denied suicidal ideation On 19 February 1982, after undergoing a You were sentenced to a $900 forfeiture paygrade E-l. On 12 April 1982 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR474 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2013. After waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04699-10
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 | CY2010 | 04524-09
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. However, on 11 October 1980, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge, but directed your commanding officer to issue you a general discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 12 November 1980, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01575-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 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...