Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR0221-13
Original file (NR0221-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

 

TAL
Docket No: 3842-13
19 March 2014

 

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 12 March 2014. 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 and began a period of active duty on
5 October 1976 at age 17. You received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) on four occasions from 25 April 1978 through 17 August
1979, for three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) from your
unit for a period totaling 169 days, 13 instances of failure to
go to your appointed place of duty, breaking restriction,
wrongful possession of another’s Armed Forces identification
card, and making a false official statement. On 14 September
1979, you were in a UA status from your unit until 4 January
1980, a period of 107 days, and missing ship’s. movement. Based

on the information currently contained in your record it appears

that you submitted a written request for an other than honorable
- (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the

UA period and- missing ship’s movement. Prior. to. submitting this —
request you would have conferred with a qualified military
lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and warned
of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a
discharge. On 5 June and 14 August 1980, you received NUP for
wrongful possession of marijuana, possession of an unauthorized
liberty pass and four instances of UA from your unit fora
period totaling 36 days. On 18 August 1980, your request was
granted and you were separated with an OTH discharge. Asa
result of this agtion, you were spared the stigma of a court-
Martial convicti‘on and the potential penalties of a punitive
discharge and confinement at hard labor. ~

The Board,’in its review of your entire record and application

- carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as

your youth and overall record of service, Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given. the seriousness of
your misconduct that resulted in six NUPs, periods of UA
totaling over ten months and request for discharge. The Board
believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when
your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was
approved. The Board concluded that you received the benefit of
your bargain with the Navy when your request for discharge was
granted and should not be permitted to change it now. Finally,

there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows

for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage of
time. 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,
+ ROBERT oo

Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00263-12

    Original file (00263-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02982-09

    Original file (02982-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 5 January 2010. On 26 March 1980, you were notified that administrative separation 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 | CY2013 | NR8164 13

    Original file (NR8164 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 4 September 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 06250-09

    Original file (06250-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 June 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. As a result, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11257-10

    Original file (11257-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | CY2007 | 07867-07

    Original file (07867-07.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. Based on the information currently contained in the record, it appears that you subsequently requested an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the two periods of UA that totaled about 55 days and missing the movement of your...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 09317-08

    Original file (09317-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2009. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth. 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.