DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BUG
Docket No: 647-13
10 October 2013
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 26 September 2013. 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. In addition, the Board considered the
report of the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), dated 25
April 1990, a copy of which is attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this regard, the Board substantially
concurred with the report of NDRB.
You enlisted in the Navy and entered active duty on 2 December
1996. You were commissioned as an ensign on 9 February 2001.
You received nonjudicial punishment for failure to obey a lawful
order and making a false official statement. You also received
four adverse fitness reports. You were then notified that you
were being administratively separated due to misconduct. You
elected to exercise your procedural right to a Board of Inquiry
(BOI). The BOI met, found you had committed misconduct, and
recommended that you receive a general characterization of
service. On 28 February 2010, you were so discharged. On 7
November 2011, the NDRB changed your narrative reason for
separation from misconduct to Secretarial Authority.
In its review of your application, the Board considered all
mitigating factors, such as your many years of honorable service
and current desire to upgrade your discharge. However, the
Board concluded that no upgrade was warranted due to your
misconduct. The Board believed you were fortunate to receive a
general characterization of service, since individuals who are
separated due to misconduct normally receive other than
honorable discharges. You are advised that no discharge is
automatically upgraded due solely to the passage of time or post
service good conduct. In view of the above, 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 injusELee.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEL
Executive Di
Enclosure
Copy to:
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901494
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. : (Decisional) () .The Applicant contends his BOI lacked a legal basis for its decision and recommendation. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09343-08
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, and notwithstanding the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The BOI recommended that you be separated with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions. As indicated above, you were notified by the Show Cause Authority -on 18 February 2005 that the BOI was not limited...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07500-09
_A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 2010. The Board also noted that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge, because normally when an individual is separated for misconduct, he is given an other than honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200507
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10370-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2009. In August 2006, the Navy Personnel Command directed that you show cause before a board of inquiry (BOI) as to why you should be retained in the Naval service. Your resignation letter specifically noted that you understood that, if your resignation was accepted you “shall subsequently receive a certificate of general discharge” and that you “could be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6361 14
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 addition, the Board considered its previous review of your case in November Log. On_30 April 1992, the Assistant Secretary—of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved the recommendations of the BOI and BOR and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100140
The NDRB determined that relief based on this issue was not warranted. The Board determined that relief based on this issue, in conjunction with his in-service conduct, was not warranted.Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s testimony, summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board foundThe Board determined that the awarded characterization of service shall , but the narrative reason for separation shall...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901206
On 10 February 2006, the day following the BOI hearing, Maj S_, the counsel for the Applicant, received the BOI record of proceedings for his initial review. The Applicant failed to show how his case was materially impacted or prejudiced by not receiving the requested additional time for a rebuttal to the BOI findings.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore,...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900005
Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19841026 - 19850826 Active: 19850827 - 1988121219881213 - 1992110619960112 - 19970130 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Commission: 19970131Age at Commission: Period of Commission: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20050731 Highest Grade: CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER (W3) Length of Service: Years Months01 Days Education Level: AFQT: 43 MOS: 2100 Fitness Reports:...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR827 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 2015. The Board, in its review of your record and application with its supporting documentation, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, guch as your allegations that your discharge was improperly effectuated, a BOL recommendation was not given due consideration, and an injustice occurred when you were refused orders that would allow you to...