Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00904 12
Original file (00904 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

 

REC
Docket No: 00904-12
25 October 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 24 October 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 on 25 January 1980. On 4 September
1980, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful
possession of marijuana. On 22 January 1982, you signed and
acknowledged the Navy’s drug and alcohol policy. On 30 March
1981, you received NUP for being in an unauthorized absence (UA)
status for 19 days, three incidents of failure to go to your
appointed place of duty, breaking restriction, and wrongful
possession of marijuana. On 17 August 1982, you commenced a
period of UA lasting 36 days. Your chain of command decided to
take no disciplinary action. On 5 October 1982, you provided a
urine sample that tested positive for wrongful use of marijuana.
On 15 October 1982, you were UA for 11 days. On 1 December
1982, you were UA for 49 days, and missed your ship’s movement.
On 31 January 1983, you were again UA for 20 days with no
disciplinary action taken by your chain of command. On 17 March
1983, you were convicted by the Superior Court of Tift County,
Georgia, of two counts of credit card fraud. You were sentenced
to three years confinement in the state prison. On 3 February
1984, you were convicted by the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia, of forgery in the first degree. You were sentenced to
another three years confinement in the state prison. On 30
March 1984, you were advised that your commanding officer was
recommending you for administrative separation with an other
than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct. You waived
all of your procedural rights, including your right to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 7 July 1984, your
commanding officer forwarded his recommendation that you be
discharged with an OTH characterization of service by reason of
misconduct. On 27 July 1984, the discharge authority directed
an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct (conviction by a civil
court). On 31 August 1984, you were so discharged. At that
time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, conduct,
and overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found
that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the
characterization of your discharge, given your record of two
NJP’s, and two civil convictions of misconduct. In this regard,
an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is
discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
The Board also 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.
Sincerely,

Piel =, —-—

ROBERT D ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR303 13

    Original file (NR303 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2013. 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. Administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11695-08

    Original file (11695-08.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 October 2009. your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the reason or characterization of your discharge, given your record of one Civilian conviction, two NJP’s and two...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11454-10

    Original file (11454-10.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. On 28 November 1982, you received NJP for unauthorized absence from your unit for a period of six days. You were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct (drug abuse).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00082-11

    Original file (00082-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of two...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01935-10

    Original file (01935-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 2010. On 13 October 1983, you received your third NJP for an additional UA period. On 27 January 1984, you received the OTH discharge due to misconduct (drug abuse).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00207 12

    Original file (00207 12.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. On 9 March 1984, you were counseled and warned 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 | 03090-11

    Original file (03090-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. The discharge authority concurred and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04606-10

    Original file (04606-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 20 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. On 22 July 1986, the ADB found that you committed misconduct and recommended that you be separated with a general discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00042-10

    Original file (00042-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TAL Docket No: 042-10 12 October 2010 ee. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 2010. @pnsequently, 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 | 05256-09

    Original file (05256-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board tor Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2010. 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...