DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BC
Docket No: 08247-13
2 September 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 27 August 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 on 10 January 1984. On 1 October 1985,
you were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of larceny
and sentenced to forfeiture of $700, reduction in pay grade and
60 days confinement at hard labor. Between 13 May and 19 August
1987, you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for the
following offenses: being in an unauthorized absence (UA)
status totaling three days, six incidents of disobeying a Lawful
order and six incidents of being disrespectful toward a petty
officer. You were advised that your commanding officer was
recommending you for administrative separation with a discharge
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) due to misconduct.
You elected to have your case heard by an administrative
discharge board (ADB). On 12 November 1987, the ADB determined
that you had committed misconduct and recommended that you be.
administratively separated with a discharge UOTHC. Your
commanding officer agreed and forwarded his recommendation to
the discharge authority, who agreed and directed a discharge
UOTHC. On 28 January 1988, you were so discharged and assigned
an RE-4 (ineligible for reenlistment) reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your application, considered all
potentially mitigating factors present in your case,
Nevertheless, the Board found that those factors insufficient to
warrant changing the characterization of your discharge, given
_ your very extensive’ record of misconduct. Accordingly, your
y application has been, denied. The names and votes of the members
sof 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,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8250 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. On 3 April 1987, you were advised that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) due to misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board found those factors insufficient to warrant changing the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8736 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8963 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 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. ‘The Board, in its review of your application, considered all potentially mitigating factors presented in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8241 13
-A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 August 2014. The Board, in its review of your application, considered all potentially mitigating factors present in your case. 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 | NR4039 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2014. You were so discharged on 23 May 1988. 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 | NR7594 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 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 elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9808767
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 1999. 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 | CY2014 | NR7230 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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. Subsequently, your commanding officer initiated administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
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 | CY2010 | 10654-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 2011. 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,...