Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04098-11
Original file (04098-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

TUR
Docket No: 4098-11
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 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 1 July 1974 at age 17 and began a
period of active duty. You served without disciplinary incident
until 21 October 1975, when you were convicted by civil
authorities of possession of an uninsured vehicle, violation of a
vehicle inspection law, and not possessing a-driver’s license.

During the period from 8 March to 12 July 1977 you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions and were
convicted by special court-martial (SPCM). Your offenses were
four periods of failure to go to your appointed place of duty,
wrongful appropriation of a government vehicle, and three
specifications of disobedience. You were also counselled on six
occasions during this period.

Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation processing by reason of misconduct due to 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
15 August 1977 an ADB recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
Your commanding officer also recommended discharge under other
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
On 7 September 1977 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
23 September 1977, 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. It also considered your assertion of being
threatened. 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 three NJPs and a court-martial conviction. Finally,
there is no evidence in the record, and you provided none, to
support your assertion of being threatened. 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,

Wome

W. DEAN PF F
Executive Dikegtpr

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04042-11

    Original file (04042-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 January 1977 you received NUP for absence from your appointed place of duty and two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of the narrative reason for separation because of the seriousness of your repeated and frequent misconduct which resulted in nine NUJPs, counselling on several occasions for involvement of a discreditable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04643-05

    Original file (04643-05.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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 1 December 1975 at age 19. Subsequently, on 15 November 1977, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07289-09

    Original file (07289-09.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07289-09

    Original file (07289-09.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01113-07

    Original file (01113-07.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 enlisted in the Navy on 1 December 1977 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident until 8...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00939-11

    Original file (00939-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken by civil authorities for this misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11679-10

    Original file (11679-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 August 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 | 07443-08

    Original file (07443-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2009. Nonetheless, you 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 or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04699-10

    Original file (04699-10.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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 76 day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08848-08

    Original file (08848-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 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...