DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
CRS
Docket No: 6636-13
5 June 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 4 June 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 3 January 1990.
You received nonjudicial punishment on four occasions and were
convicted by a special court-martial. The offenses included
absence from appointed place of duty, drunk on duty, failure to
obey a lawful order, and three periods of unauthorized absence
totaling 157 days.
On 18 October 1991 an administrative discharge board recommended
that you be separated with a general discharge by reason of
misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. After
review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for
‘separation was approved and on 5 December 1991 you were
separated with a general discharge by reason of misconduct due
to the commission of a serious offense.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. The Board concluded that those
factors are insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
service, given the seriousness of your offenses.
,im your application, you are requesting that the date of your
“discharge be changed to 14 February 1992 to meet Department of
Veterans Affairs home eligibility requirements. Since the
record clearly shows that you were discharged on 5 December
1991, the Board concluded that you were properly discharged on 5
December 1991. 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 Boar 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,
© StS OR
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4771 13
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. You served without disciplinary incident until 4 October 1990, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NIP) for missing the movement of your ship...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2510-13
A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 2014. You were "80 discharged .On 29 October 1992. , Ce The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially’ mitigating factors, such as your record of service, post service accomplishments, character letters, and desire to upgrade your discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6085 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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 | CY2006 | 10056-06
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 connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable discharge and elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02082-08
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. Subsequently, on 20 December 1991, 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 | NR4917 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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 | CY2013 | NR2728-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4551 13
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. - The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01655-07
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.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 reenlisted in the Navy on 2 December 1988 after three years of prior honorable service. You...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2657-13
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 21 November 1991. 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.