Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4892 13
Original file (NR4892 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

TJIR
Docket No: 4892-13
29 April 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 15 April 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 8
May 1987. You served for about five months without disciplinary
incident, but on 29 October and again on 3 December 1987, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for underage indulgence in
alcoholic beverages, two specifications of making false official
statements, larceny of government ‘property, two specifications of
failure to obey a lawful order, impersonating a petty officer,
and two specifications of disobedience.

On 14 January 1988 you were notified of administrative separation
by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

_After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your

case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 8 February
1988 an ADB recommended separation under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious
offense. On 25 March 1988 your commanding officer, in
concurrence with the ADB, also recommended discharge under other
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to
commission of a serious offense. Three days later, on 28 March
1988, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was
not terminated until you were apprehended by civil authorities on
3 May 1988. During this period of UA you were also declared a
deserter, however, the record does not reflect the disciplinary
action taken for this 36 day period of UA. Subsequently, on 13
April 1988, the discharge authority approved the foregoing
recommendations and directed discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 20 May 1988 you were
SO Separated.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion that you were
not mentally stable enough to understand the consequences of your
discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the
seriousness of your repetitive misconduct. Finally, there is no
evidence in the record, and you provided none, to support your
assertion of being mentally incompetent. Accordingly, your
application has 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,

TTD,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08132-07

    Original file (08132-07.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. Subsequently, your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07006-07

    Original file (07006-07.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. Shortly thereafter, on 24 February 1988, you were notified of pending administrative separation action 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5619 13

    Original file (NR5619 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 '8 July 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4768 13

    Original file (NR4768 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 15 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. Subsequently, your commanding officer, in concurrence with the ADB, also recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03627-10

    Original file (03627-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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 | CY2013 | NR4094-13

    Original file (NR4094-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05571-06

    Original file (05571-06.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.You enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 7 February 1987 and began a period of active duty on 11 February...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04105-12

    Original file (04105-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. After waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present “your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), on 3 January 1989, your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02392-09

    Original file (02392-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RK three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2010. Documentary material congidered 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 1988 you received NUP for two periods of UA totalling two days, failure to obey a lawful order, and four periods of absence from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1624-13

    Original file (NR1624-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 January 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 probable...