Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03979-12
Original file (03979-12.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: 03979-12
27 February 2013

 

 

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 21 February 2013. 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
imyUSELCE.

You reenlisted in the Navy on 9 September 1982. On 2 February
1983, you were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of
drunk and reckless operation of a vehicle, being drunk and
disorderly, and assault. You were sentenced to a forfeiture of
$450, and confinement at hard labor for three months. On 22
July 1983, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for
wrongful use of marijuana. On 17 November 1983, you received
NIP for sleeping on post. On 24 November 1983, your self-
inflicted gunshot wound was found to be due to your own
misconduct and not in the line of duty. On 8 and 24 March 1984,
you received NUJPs for willful disobedience of a lawful order.
On 10 April 1984, you received NUP for two incidents of failure
to obey a lawful order and wrongfully communicating a threat to
a senior noncommissioned officer. On 23 March 1984, you were
advised that your commanding officer was recommending you for
administrative separation. You elected to have your case heard
by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 6 April 1984,
your case was heard by the ADB and by a unanimous vote of 3-0
you were recommended for administrative separation with an other
than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to
misconduct. On 6 April 1984, your commanding officer agreed
with the ADB and forwarded his recommendation that you be
discharged with an OTH characterization of service by reason of
misconduct. On 26 April 1984, the discharge authority directed
an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct (pattern of
misconduct). On 30 April 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 prior honorable
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 and a conviction by a
SPCM 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. 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,

\sQeaae (Ro-d

W. DEAN PF
Executive

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04028-12

    Original file (04028-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 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. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02439-09

    Original file (02439-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A ches tietiber panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 12 January 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12365-08

    Original file (12365-08.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 23 March 1985, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | CY2010 | 12208-10

    Original file (12208-10.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 March 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 | CY2010 | 06590-10

    Original file (06590-10.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 March 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. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which found that you had committed misconduct, and recommended an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 06880-12

    Original file (06880-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 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. You were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03787-09

    Original file (03787-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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 | CY2009 | 00260-09

    Original file (00260-09.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. On 23 April 1986, 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 | CY2011 | 00217-11

    Original file (00217-11.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 6 November 1984, you received the OTH discharge due to misconduct drug abuse (use). Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of two NUP’s for misconduct, and drug abuse (use).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07239-08

    Original file (07239-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 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. On 8 April 1983, you were counseled regarding your unsatisfactory performance and conduct, advised that the command would assist you with alcohol...