DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7015S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 100i
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-24390
TUR
Docket No: 7956-13
2 September 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 26 August 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 4 April 1983 after serving more
than four years of prior satisfactory service. You continued to
serve without disciplinary incident until 15 September 1983, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NIP) for disrespect, failure
to obey a lawful order, two periods of failure to go to your
appointed place of duty, and four periods of absence from your
appointed place of duty.
During the period from 26 October to 25 November 1983, you were
seen by medical officials on six occasions after complaining of
-ankle pain. You were given medical care and placed on light duty
for two weeks after being diagnosed with a sprained ankle.
Shortly thereafter, on 30 November. 1983, you received NIP for two
periods of failure to go to your appointed place of duty.
On 16 July 1984, you received your third NUP for failure to obey
a lawful order. Subsequently, you were processed for an
administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to a
pattern or misconduct and frequent involvement of discreditable
he tanger
nature with military authorities. After waiving your procedural
rights, your commanding officer recommended discharge under other
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due a pattern
er misconduct and frequent involvement of discreditable nature
with military authorities. On 15 September 1984, the discharge
authority approved this recommendation and directed separation
under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due
to a pattern of misconduct, and om 21 September 1584, you were so
discharged.
a
The Board, in its* review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your prior periéd of satisfactory service, post service conduct,
and desire to upgrade 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 which resulted in three NUPs. Further, you were given
an opportunity to defend your actions, but waived your procedural
rights. Finally, no discharge is automatically upgraded due
solely to an individual's good post service conduct or the
passage of time. 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,
ROBERT J. O’'NEILE
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08424-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 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 | CY2010 | 03030-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 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. After waiving your procedural rights to legal counsel and an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended discharge...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08590-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval and health records, applicable statutes, regulations and policies. On 3 August 1984, you were counseled regarding UA and disobeying lawful orders, and warned that further misconduct could result in disciplinary action or administrative separation. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01634-09
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 25 May 1985 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 7 June 1985, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03253-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 January 2012. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, post service conduct, desire to upgrade the characterization of your discharge, and assertion that you were told that your discharge would be upgraded seven years after your separation. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01616-10
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 31 March 1983 you received your third NUP for three periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, a one day period of UA, failure to obey a lawful order, and two specifications of sleeping on watch. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07538-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2009. On 7 December 1984 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge 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 | CY2010 | 03048-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2011. 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 received two more NUPs on 24 January and 18 February 1983 for falsifying an official document, a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA), and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06717-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 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 | CY2007 | 06346-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2008. 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...