DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100 SUN
Docket No: 12091-10
25 August 2011
This ig 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 23 August 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
imjustice.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
26 September 1984. The Board found that you received five
nonjudicial punishments (NUJP’s) for failure to go to your
appointed place of duty, disobedience, larceny, three periods of
unauthorized absence, being incapacitated for the proper
performance of duty, drunk and disorderly conduct, and breaking
restriction. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after
your first NUP, that further misconduct could result in
administrative discharge action. Subsequently, administrative
discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a
pattern of misconduct. You waived your rights to consult counsel,
submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative
discharge board (ADB). Your case was forwarded recommending that
you be discharged under other than honorable (OTH) conditions by
reason of misconduct. The discharge authority concurred and
directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to pattern
of misconduct. You were so discharged on 30 January 1987.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, record of
service, and post-service accomplishments. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given your five NUP’s for
serious offenses and the fact that you were counseled and warned
on several occasions of the consequences of further misconduct.
Finally, the Board noted that you waived the right to an ADB,
your best chance for retention or a better characterization of
service. 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,
\a Vows
paecu ae
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03729-10
A three-member panel of thé Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2011. Additionally, after your third NJP, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | 03773-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2011. On 9 November 1990 you were so discharged. 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 | CY2009 | 06195-09
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. Additionally, after your second NUP, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | 10771-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 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 | 03515-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3689 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your second NUP that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01014-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application.on 9 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 | CY2009 | 01894-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 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. On 16 April 1993, administrative discharge action was initiated by.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03688-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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. On 28 August 1991, the discharge authority directed an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04571-09
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 31 July 1991, you received NUP for drunk and disorderly conduct. 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.