DEPARTMENT-OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1S. COURTHOUSE RQAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TUR oe
Docket Na: 3531-13
21 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 18 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 27
June 1984. You served without disciplinary incident for about 10
months, however, during the péricd' from 30 April 1985 to 9 July
1986, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) on four .
occasions. Your offenses were theft of a’ television and stereo
valued at $200, two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) | :
_ totalling three days, absence from your appointed place of duty,
and larceny of $500,000 lire which is equivalent to $333 in U. s.
currency. i,
Subsequently, you were processed’ for an administrative separation
by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military authorities. After waiving
your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to
present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB) your
commanding officer recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent
- involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed
your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable
discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 14 August 1986, you
were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your post service conduct.and desire to upgrade your discharge.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your misconduct which resulted in
four NJPs. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend
yourself, but waived your procedural right t6é present your case-
to an ADB. Accordingly, your application hag been denied.
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,
Re SS. eS
ROBERT D. “SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04514-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 2010. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your case to an ADB. 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 | 12555 11
R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2012. Documentary material considered by +he 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 | 03253-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 January 2012. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, post service conduct, desire to upgrade the characterization of your discharge, and assertion that you were told that your discharge would be upgraded seven years after your separation. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12516 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2012. During the period from 9 January to 31 July 1986 you received NUP on two more occasions for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty and impersonating a petty officer to gain entrance to an Army noncommissioned officer's club. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02400-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2005. 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 | CY2009 | 01710-09
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 February 1986 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 21 February 1986, you were so discharged. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03343-08
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 so discharged on 15 July 1986. 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 | CY2008 | 10140-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, reguiations, and policies. With regard to your reenlistment code, the Board found no factors to warrant a change, which was based on your disciplinary record and substandard behavior. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged due to misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4905 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2014. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6514 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 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. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...