Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00923 12
Original file (00923 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: 00923-12
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 11 June 1986, at age 17. On 16 June
1986, you signed and acknowledged the Navy's drug and alcohol
policy. On 13 November 1986, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for disobeying a lawful order by drinking
alcohol while under age. On 26 January 1987, you received NJP
for use of provoking words, communicating a threat, assaulting a
shore patrolman, and being drunk and disorderly. On 8 April
1987, you received NUP for being disrespectful in language, use
of provoking words, failure to obey a lawful order, disobeying a
lawful order, and being drunk in public. On 23 October 1987,
you received NUP for being disrespectful in language, drinking
alcohol while under age, being drunk in public, and disorderly
conduct. On 5 April 1988, you received NJP for drinking under
age, unlawfully drinking an alcoholic beverage, and being drunk
and disorderly. On 11 April 1988, you provided a urine sample
that tested positive for wrongful use of marijuana. On 18 April
1988, 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 21 April 1988, your
commanding officer forwarded his recommendation that you be
discharged with an OTH characterization of service by reason of
misconduct. On 27 April 1988, the discharge authority directed

an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct (pattern of
misconduct). On 18 May 1988, 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 five
NJP’s for 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,

posed SD, Amd

ROBERT D 4ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04685-09

    Original file (04685-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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. On 19 December 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a four day period of unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit and dereliction of duty.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09184-07

    Original file (09184-07.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 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. It also considered your assertion that your misconduct, discharge, and reenlistment code were the result of your abuse of alcohol.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05128-10

    Original file (05128-10.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. On 23 March 1989, your Case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an other than honorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00148-11

    Original file (00148-11.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. On 14 August 1989, the ADB found that you committed misconduct and recommended that you be separated with an OTH discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01145 12

    Original file (01145 12.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 November 2012. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the characterization of your discharge, given your record of three NJP’s, two convictions by SPCM’s, and by two SCM’s of serious misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12133-09

    Original file (12133-09.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 August 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2433-13

    Original file (NR2433-13.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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 | 04443-10

    Original file (04443-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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 | 01157-11

    Original file (01157-11.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 7 August 1989 you received NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty. 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 | CY2013 | NR3689 13

    Original file (NR3689 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 22 April 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your second NUP that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.