Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02604-11
Original file (02604-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TUR
Docket No: 2604-11
14 April 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 12 April 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 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 on 28 July 1998 at age 19 and began a
period of active duty on 19 October 1998. You served without
disciplinary incident until 28 March 2002, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NIP) for two periods of absence from your
appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was a $500
forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty for 10 days, and
reduction to paygrade E-3. The paygrade reduction was suspended
for six months, but on 9 May 2002, it was vacated due to your
continued misconduct. About six months later, on 17 September
2002, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of four
periods of failure to go to your appointed place of duty and a 48
day period of unauthorized absence (UA). You were sentenced to a
$736 forfeiture of pay, confinement for 30 days, and reduction to
paygrade E-1.

Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense. After consulting with legal counsel, you
elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board
(ADB). On 16 October 2002 an ADB recommended discharge under
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of
a serious offense. On 21 October 2002, your commanding officer,
in concurrence with the ADB, also recommended discharge under
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. Subsequently, the
discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed
your commanding officer to issue you a general discharge under
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 25 November
2002, you were so discharged.

ae:
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to upgrade your discharge. It also
considered your assertion of racism. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in a NUP and a SCM.
Further, Sailors who are discharged by reason of misconduct
normally receive discharges under other than honorable
conditions, and as such, you were fortunate to receive a general
discharge. Finally, there is no documented evidence in the
record and you submitted none to support your assertion of
racism. 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,

lo |
W. DEAN PF R
Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03627-10

    Original file (03627-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02377-11

    Original file (02377-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 19 September 1990 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08643-01

    Original file (08643-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2002. On 6 October 1977 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reasion of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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 | 03451-10

    Original file (03451-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00171-08

    Original file (00171-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 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 | CY2008 | 05284-08

    Original file (05284-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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. 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 | 06062-10

    Original file (06062-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend your actions, but waived your procedural right to present your case to an 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 | CY2010 | 04687-10

    Original file (04687-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03499-10

    Original file (03499-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05575-06

    Original file (05575-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 7 July 1989 after four years of prior honorable service. You served...