DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TUR
Docket No: 4178-11
10 February 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 7 February 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 12 June 1990 at age 18 and began a
period of active duty on 19 July 1990. You served for about a
year without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 10
July 1991 to 29 July 1992 you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) on three occasions for disobedience, nine periods of
absence from your appointed place of duty, and a four day period
of unauthorized absence (UA).
On 7 January 1993 you were convicted by summary court-martial
(SCM) of attempted theft of a carburetor and were sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a $65 forfeiture of
pay. Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct
and commission of a serious offense. After consulting with legal
counsel you elected to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB). On 22 April 1993 an ADB recommended a
general discharge under honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. However, on 7
June 1993, your commanding officer recommended discharge under
other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. The
discharge authority approved the recommendation of the ADB and
directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 25
June 1993, you were so discharged and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
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 and change your
reenlistment code. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case
because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct which
resulted in three NUPs and a court-martial conviction.
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,
\pdsas
W. DEAN P R
Executive recto
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03409-11
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 waiving your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), on 13 April 1993, your commanding officer recommended you be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02220-11
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. On 30 July 1990, the ADB recommended separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00477 12
On 4 May 1990, you were UA for three days, with no disciplinary action taken. On 5 September and 1 October 1990, you were UA one day each, and no disciplinary action was taken against you. On 8 July 1991, you were UA again for one day and no disciplinary action was taken.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02193-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 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 | 03522-11
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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission. The discharge authority concurred and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00368-11
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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04203-07
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.On 18 July 1989, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 23 after a prior period of honorable service. On...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02203-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with aii 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05204-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted and applicable statutes, regulations and Your allegations of error and After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01317-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 2009. You elected to consult counsel and 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 or injustice.