DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TJR
Docket No: 5583-13.
30 May 2014
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant te 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 28 May 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, tegether with all
material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice, — os a oO
You'reenlisted in the ‘Navy after more than three years of prior
Satisfactory service. You continued to serve for about nine
months without disciplinary incident, however; during the period
from 27 June 1984 ‘to 22 August 1985, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NIP) on three occasions and were convicted by civil
authorities. Your offenses were six-periods of unauthorized
absence (UA) totalling 50 days, two periods. of absence from your
appointed place of duty, two specifications of failure to obey a
lawful order, and wrongful use of Percocet... -
On: 27 ‘November: 1985 you.were convicted by special court-martial
-(SPCM). of a 60 day period Of ‘UA. and ‘sentenced to confinement at
hard labor for 55 days, a $720 forfeiture of pay, reduction to
paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge’ (BCD). Subsequently,
the BCD was approved.at all levels ‘of review and on 24 June 1986
you were discharged. 2 ° - —
4
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application
carefully weighed ail potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your discharge, prior satisfactory
service, post service conduct, and the passage of time.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct, which
included lengthy periods of UA and resulted in three NJPs and
convictions by SPCM and civil authorities. Finally, no discharge
is upgraded due solely to the passage of time or an individual’s
post service conduct. 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,
IKONS Te
ROBERT D. 4SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06492-07
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. 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 | CY2013 | NR5788 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2014. The sentence at your SPCM included a bad conduct discharge (BCD) which was suspended for six months. 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 | CY2010 | 01613-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 2010. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your period of prior honorable service and desire to upgrade your discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the @xistence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6911 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 2014. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your post service conduct, desire to upgrade your discharge, and the passage of time. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8157 13
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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3565-13
‘A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 2014... (SPCM) o£ a one day period of /UA, absence from your appointed place of duty, and two specifications of wrongful use’ of cocaine. The Board, in its review of your record and application, .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4993 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 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 | NR1472 13
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. On 8 April 1987, you were again convicted by SPCM of five instances of unauthorized absence from your unit for a period totaling 26 days, failure to go to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8159 13
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 | CY2001 | 07488-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2002. Your record reflects that on 21 August 1982 you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated until you were apprehended by civil authorities on 9 April 1985. 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.