Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5621 13
Original file (NR5621 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

SIN
Docket No: 5621-13
10 July 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 8 July 2014. 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

19 April 1993. The Board found that on 4 November 1993, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for failing to go to your
appointed place of duty, and being drunk on duty. You received
restriction, extra duty, a forfeiture of pay and a suspended
reduction in paygrade. Additionally, you were counseled and
warned that further misconduct could result in administrative
discharge action. On 11 February 1994, your suspended reduction
in paygrade was vacated due to continued misconduct, and you
received a second NUP for seven days of unauthorized absence (UA)
and missing ship’s movement. You received restriction, extra
duty, and a reduction in paygrade. Subsequently, administrative
discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to
commission of a serious offense. You waived your rights to
consult counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an
administrative discharge board (ADB). Your case was forwarded
recommending that you be discharged under other than honorable
(OTH) conditions by reason of misconduct. The discharge
authority concurred and directed an OTH discharge by reason of
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. You were so
discharged on 3 March 1994. .

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of
service and desire to upgrade your discharge. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
-recharacterization of your discharge given your two NUP’s for
very serious offenses and the fact that you were warned of the
consequences of further misconduct. Finally, the Board noted
that you waived the right to an ADB, your best chance for
retention or a better characterization of service. 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,

TTS LADD APS gn

ROBERT D. ALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2527-13

    Original file (NR2527-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 May 1994, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 | NR8891 13

    Original file (NR8891 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 30 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. You received restriction, extra duty and a forfeiture of pay.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4122 13

    Original file (NR4122 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 30 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. 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 | NR6730 13

    Original file (NR6730 13.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. The Board found that on 17 May 1982, you were counseled regarding your misconduct and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant-to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 113331-10

    Original file (113331-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2938-13

    Original file (NR2938-13.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, administrative discharge action was initiated 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 probable material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 06880-12

    Original file (06880-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 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. You were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04389-11

    Original file (04389-11.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 February 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5417 14

    Original file (NR5417 14.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 June .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 | NR6421 13

    Original file (NR6421 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 22 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...