Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2655-13
Original file (NR2655-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S,. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

SON
Docket No: 02655-13
2 April 2014

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 1 April 2014. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the procéedings 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 1 March 1989. The Board found that during the period
from 23 February to 1 October 1990, you received three
nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) for six instances of being absent
from your appointed place of duty, disobedience, and three
instances of missing restricted musters. Additionally, you were
counseled on six separate occasions regarding your conduct and
performance, and warned that further misconduct could result in
administrative Gischarge action. Subsequently, administrative
separation action was initiated to separate you by reason of
Misconduct due to alcohol rehabilitation failure and minor
disciplinary infractions. You elected to consult with legal
counsel and subsequently requested an administrative discharge
board (ADB). ‘The ADB found that you were an alcohol
rehabilitation failure, committed misconduct due to minor
Gisciplinary infractions, and recommended discharge under other
than honorable (OTH) conditions. Your commanding officer
forwarded your case concurring with the ADB’s findings and
recommendation. On 6 December 1990, the separation authority
directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct. On

13 December 1990 you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, record of
service, and belief that your characterization of service would
automatically be upgraded. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given your three NUP‘s, failure to adhere to_
your command’s alcohol rehabilitation program, and the fact that
you were warned on numerous occasions, of the consequences of

: further misconduct. The Board noted that the administrative
separation process includes the requirement that commands process
service members for all reasons for which minimum criteria are
met. This enabled the separation authority (SA) to approve
discharge for the most appropriate reason. In this regard,
although you were notified that you your being administratively
separated due to alcohol rehabilitation failure and misconduct,
the SA directed that you be processed due to misconduct.

Further, separation for misconduct normally takes precedence over
all other reasons for discharge. Finally, you are advised that
there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows
for recharacterization of a discharge automatically 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 D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07864-07

    Original file (07864-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2008. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02222-08

    Original file (02222-08.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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05523-07

    Original file (05523-07.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. On 31 August 1990, you were so discharged. 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 | 09351-07

    Original file (09351-07.rtf) 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.On 20 April 1987, you enlisted in the Navy at age 22. On 28 December 1990, you had nonjudicial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01459-08

    Original file (01459-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 9 November 1990, the separation authority approved the ADB's recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. The majority finds that Petitioner's two disciplinary actions were proper and his discharge was in accordance with regulations, but also finds that his offenses were relatively minor as evidenced by his commanding officer's recommendation for a general discharge. The minority believes that Petitioner's overall service...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10122-07

    Original file (10122-07.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. During the period 12 November 1982 to 18 February 1983, you had three NUP's. 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 | 07445-07

    Original file (07445-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 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. On 14 May 1990, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01582-08

    Original file (01582-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and elected to have your case heard by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04345-12

    Original file (04345-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 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. 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 | 04926-08

    Original file (04926-08.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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...