DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1T S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2480
SIN
Docket No: 1623-14
13 March 2015
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.
Although ‘your’ application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of
limitations and consider your application on.its merits. A
three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
24 February 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 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.
On 18 December 1990, you reenlisted in the Navy after serving
over seven years of prior satisfactory service. On 16 June 1997
and 15 January 1998, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for larceny. Additionally, you were counseled on four occasions
regarding your conduct and performance, and warned that further
deficiencies could result in administrative discharge action.
Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. After being
afforded all of your procedural rights, your case was forwarded
to the separation authority recommending that you receive an
other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct. The
separation authority concurred and directed an OTH discharge by
reason of misconduct. You were so discharged on 26 May 1998.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service, post service accomplishments, and desire
to upgrade your discharge. Nevertheless, based on the
information currently contained in your record, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given your two NJPs, and the
fact that you were warned of the consequences of further
‘misconduct on more than one occasion. 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.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
on
ee
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2114 14
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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5848 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 2015. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the reason for your discharge or recharacterization of your discharge given your three NJPs, and the fact that you were warned of the consequences of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR477 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. You were so discharged on 21 May 1986.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3488 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 March 2015. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insuffi to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4682 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material evror...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5460 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 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. Additionally, you were counseled regarding your misconduct and alcohol abuse, and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5067 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 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 | NR2370 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 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. Nevertheless, the Board .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4392 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 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. 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 | NR3590 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval. 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.