DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JDR
Docket No: 3839-14
10 April 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 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
8 April 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.
You enlisted in the Navy, began a period of active duty on
11 December 1984, and satisfactorily served without disciplinary
incident for about 14 months. However, during the period from
25 February to 11 April 1996, you received two nonjudicial
punishments (NUP) for willfully disobeying a superior
commissioned officer, uttering checks without sufficient funds,
and failing to pay just debts.
Although the discharge documentation is not in your record, it
appears that administrative separation action was initiated by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and on
6 January 1984, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your application and record
(although incomplete), carefully weighed all potentially
mitigating factors, such as your period of satisfactory service
and desire to upgrade your discharge. It also considered your
assertion that you were held responsible for your former wife's
debt. Nevertheless, based on the. information currently contained:
in your record, the Board concluded’ these factors were-not
sufficient to warrant an upgrade of your discharge given your
misconduct which resulted in two NUPs. Further, the Board found
that your assertion was insufficient to establish the existence
of probable material error or injustice. 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2396 14
A’ three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. 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 | CY2015 | NR2815 15_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4018 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7666 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 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 error...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3849 14
a three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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 | NR6893 14_Redacted
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7285 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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 | NR2089 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2015. 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 | CY2014 | NR6971 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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. On 15 April and 30 May 1986, you received (NUP) for two specification of failing to obey a lawful order, a period of four days of UA, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4323 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2015. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use. 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.