DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
5) ae BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Te es
tie Je 701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD
& ARLINGTON, VA 22204
SIN
Docket No: 02181-1121
10 January 2012
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 5 January
2012. 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 and began a period of active duty on
10 October 1990. The Board found you received five nonjudicial
punishments (NJP’s) for two instances of failure to go to your
appointed place of duty, larceny, unauthorized absence, and three
instances of disobedience. Additionally, you were counseled and
warned after your second 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 commanding officer forwarded his
recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable (OTH)
conditions by reason of misconduct. He stated, in part, that your
inability to follow orders and act as a mature adult had a negative
impact on good order and discipline. He also stated you could not be
trusted to get even the simplest of tasks accomplished, had no desire
to improve as a Sailor or become part of the Navy team. Simply put,
you were a continuous disciplinary and administrative burden to the
command .
On 18 December 1991, the separation authority directed an OTH
discharge by reason of misconduct. On 15 January 1992, you were so
discharged.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed ail
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and record of
service. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your
record of five NUP’s, and the fact that you were counseled and warned -
of the consequences of further misconduct. Finally, the Board noted
that you waived the right to an ADB, your best opportunity 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.
Wye
\s wu§ PF R
Executive tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03514-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 2012. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your first NUP, 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 | CY2011 | 04011-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2012. On 11 December 1990, you received the OTH discharge for misconduct (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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02963-09
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. You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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 | 00488 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. On 30 May 1991 you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03117-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 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. Biter careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04211-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 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 | 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 | CY2011 | 03471-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 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 | CY2013 | NR1805 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 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 on eight occasions that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04080-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2012. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...