Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8344 13
Original file (NR8344 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 OT

SIN
Docket No: 8344-23
11 September 2014

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your

naval record pursuant to the provisions of titie 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 9 September 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 11 January 1985. The Board found that during the period
from 28 April to 20 June 1986, you received three nonjudicial
punishments {NUP’'s) for Gisobedience, and three instances of
being absent from your appointed place of duty. On 14 July 1986,
you were counseled regarding your conduct and warned that further
misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. on
20 August 1986, you received NUP for breaking restriction. On
-18 September 1986, you were convicted by summary court-martial
(SCM) of breaking restriction. On 15 October 1987, you received
a. fifth NIP for two days of unauthorized absence. ‘Subsequently,
administrative discharge action’ was initiated by reason of
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. You waived your
rights to consult counsel, submit a statement or have your case
heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 9 February
1988, your case was forwarded recommending that you be discharged
under other than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason of
misconduct. The separation authority concurred and directed an
OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. You were so discharged on 19 February 1988.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of
service and post service accomplishments. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant

y recharacterization of your discharge given your five NUP’s and
" ScM conviction." The Board also 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,

   
   

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00583-12

    Original file (00583-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00517 12

    Original file (00517 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 17 October 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03292-09

    Original file (03292-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval “Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2010. 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 | CY2009 | 10658-09

    Original file (10658-09.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 July 2010. 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 | CY2008 | 01911-08

    Original file (01911-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors and your belief were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01507-11

    Original file (01507-11.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 discharge authority concurred and directed an OTH 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 | CY2013 | NR2687-13

    Original file (NR2687-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. Additionally, you were counseled on more than one occasion regarding your misconduct, and warned that further misconduct could result...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03773-10

    Original file (03773-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2011. On 9 November 1990 you were so discharged. 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 | CY2012 | 00286-12

    Original file (00286-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. On 9 May 1986, you received NUP for being UA for one day.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02392-09

    Original file (02392-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RK three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2010. Documentary material congidered 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 23 March 1988 you received NUP for two periods of UA totalling two days, failure to obey a lawful order, and four periods of absence from...