22 January 2015
——
This ig 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.
an three-member: panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 6 January 2015. 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 ali
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 oF
injustice. . a
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
20 June 1989. On 18 January 1991, you were convicted by special
court-martial’ (SPCM) of attempting to steal property from the
Navy Exchange, five specifications of- failing to go to your
appointed place of duty, 31 days of unauthorized absence, two
specifications of disobedience, two specifications of resisting
apprehension, wrongful use’ of methamphetamine, and assauit. You
were gentenced to confinement at hard labor, a forfeiture of pay,
snd a bad conduct discharge (BCD). You received the BCD on
6 March 1992 after appellate review was completed.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service, desire to upgrade your discharge,
Cartification of Rehabilitation and pardon from the Superior
Court scat oifornia, and-assextion.that your post Seryese a.
diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) contributed to
your misconduct while on active duty. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of .your discharge given your epcemM conviction
‘of very serious offenses. Regarding your assertion that you were
- suffering from PTSD when your misconduct occurred, the Board
*noted that the severity of your misconduct outweighed the
mitigations of yourpost service diagnosed PTSD. Finally, there
is no evidence in the record, and you provided none to support
your assertion. 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 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.
Sincerel
ROBERT J. O’NETLL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR13277 14_Redacted
A three-member’ panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, ‘considered your application on 6 January 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision 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 | CY2014 | NR4626 14
A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 2015. 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 | NR8645 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5593 14_Redacted
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 30} S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 iad: Hoo SEOs Docket No: 5593-14 1° F aya" f 12 February AOL'S RK three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015. The BCD was approved at all levels of review and on 26 October 1969, you were 50 discharged The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR510 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2015. 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 frequent involvement.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR660 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2015. 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. Nonetheless, your request was denied and the BCD was subsequently approved at all levels of review, and on 30 January 1976, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7371 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 2015. 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 | NR3901 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision 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 | CY2014 | NR10758 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2015. 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. After applying these guidelines to the evidence in the case, the Board was not able to substantiate the existence of PTSD in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5464 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 2015. 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 a pattern of misconduct.