DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TUR
Docket No: 3191-11
23 January 2012
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 18 January 2012. 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 Bodrd 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 11 April 1983 at age 19 and began a
period of active duty. You served for nearly two years without
disciplinary incident. However, during the period from 5
February to 7 October 1985 you were convicted by civil
authorities of theft of an automobile tag. You also received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions for two
specifications of failure to obey a lawful order as evidenced by
xemoving photographic equipment from your command, wrongful
disposition and appropriation of photographic equipment valued at
$5,101.34, and uttering two checks without sufficient funds
totalling $290.50. You were also in the custody of civil
authorities after an arrest warrant was issued for writing
checks with insufficient funds in the amount of $126.99.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation processing by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature
with military and civilian authorities. After consulting with
legal counsel you elected to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 13 November 1991 an ADB
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian
authorities as evidenced by a civil misdemeanor conviction, two
NUPs, failure to pay just debts, and writing insufficient funds
checks. On 22 November 1985 your commanding officer also
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 7
December 1985 the discharge authority approved these
recommendations and directed your commanding officer to issue you
an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on
13 December 1985, 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, desire to upgrade your
discharge, and the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repetitive misconduct in both the military and civilian
communities. Finally, no discharge is upgraded due solely to an
individual’s good post service conduct or the passage of time.
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,
\s
W. DEAN PF
Executive Oo
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06130-10
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 25 September and 28 November 1972 your command received two letters of indebtedness resulting from your failure to pay just debts. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04237-09
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 | CY2002 | 10197-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 September 2003. imposed was reduction to On 11 March and again on 5 May 1959 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling three days and breaking restriction. January 1961 the discharge authority then directed an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...
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 | CY2007 | 03885-07
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 24 June 1982 at age 20 and served without disciplinary incident until 18...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3136-13
‘A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12555 11
R 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 +he 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 | 01634-09
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 25 May 1985 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 7 June 1985, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01328
ND97-01328 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970828, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The member will be advised that if he or she elects an administrative discharge board, nonjudicial punishments, courts-martial convictions and/or involvement(s) of a discreditable nature with civil authorities (when member is processed for this reason) occurring up to the announcement of the board’s findings and...
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00609
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 860314 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).The applicant introduced...