Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8945 13
Original file (NR8945 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001

 

TAL
Docket No: 8945-13
2 October 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 24 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on

5 July 1977 at age 24. You received nonjudicial punishment

(NUP) on four occasions from 8 March through 28 September 1978
for two instances of misbehavior as a lookout, being derelict in
the performance of your duties, two instances of failure to go
to your appointed place of duty, and unauthorized absence (UA)
from your unit for a period of three days. On 18 December 1978,
‘you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of
communicating a threat, two instances of insubordinate conduct
toward a noncommissioned officer, disrespect toward a
commissioned officer, and willful disobedience of a commissioned
officer. On 1 March 1979, you received NUP for wrongful
possession and use of marijuana, failure to obey a lawful
regulation and using an unauthorized armed forces identification
card. On 27 March 1979, you were notified of pending
administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable

(OTH) discharge due to misconduct (frequent involvement). You
waived all of your procedural rights, including your right to an
administrative discharge aboard (ADB). on i7 April 1979, you

received the OTH discharge for misconduct (frequent
involvement) .

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and —
yoverall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
‘these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
bf your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct that
resulted in five NUPs and an SCM. The Board 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 within one year from the date of the Board's
decision, New evidence is evidence not previously considered by
the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 | CY2008 | 06162-08

    Original file (06162-08.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. During the period 4 April to 10 August 1978, you were in a UA status, a period of about 128 days. On 15 August 1979, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02982-09

    Original file (02982-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 5 January 2010. On 26 March 1980, you were notified that administrative separation action. 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 | NR3860-13

    Original file (NR3860-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval _ Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ; application on 19 March 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1416 13

    Original file (NR1416 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 14 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5901 13

    Original file (NR5901 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 4 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. 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 | NR8164 13

    Original file (NR8164 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 4 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 of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03156-09

    Original file (03156-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2010. 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 initially enlisted in the Air Force from July 1972 to April 1974, and received an honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4068-13

    Original file (NR4068-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . _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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11257-10

    Original file (11257-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | NR6780 13

    Original file (NR6780 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 16 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...