Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4155 14
Original file (NR4155 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TAL
Docket No: 4155-14
7 May 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 and began a period of active duty on

1 August 1972. You served for 10 months without disciplinary
incident, but during the period from 28 June 1973 to

14 June 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three
occasions and were convicted by special court-martial. Your
offenses were failure to go to your appointed place of duty,
insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, failure
to obey a lawful order, unauthorized absence (UA), missed ship’s
movement, willfully disobeying a commissioned officer.

Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of
a discreditable nature at which time you waived your procedural
rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to
an administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer
recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to frequent involvement. The discharge authority
approved this recommendation and directed separation under
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on
6 August 1974, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board
found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of
your repeated misconduct. Finally, the Board believed that you
were fortunate to receive a general discharge since a separation
under other than honorable conditions is often directed when a
Sailor is separated for frequent disciplinary infractions.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.

The Board recommends that you should contact the Department of
Navy, Navy Personnel Command (Pers-3C), 5720 Integrity Drive,
Millington, TN 38055-3120 to request that administrative
corrections be made to your Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty (DD Form 214) such as, but not inclusive of,
your date of birth, social security number, or record of service.

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 | CY2014 | NR5168 14

    Original file (NR5168 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement at which time you waived...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4251 14

    Original file (NR4251 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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 | CY2010 | 13341-10

    Original file (13341-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 March 2011. 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 | NR3991 14

    Original file (NR3991 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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 material error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4641 14

    Original file (NR4641 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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 material error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01823-08

    Original file (01823-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in a UD and elected to have your case heard by an administrative...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4269 14

    Original file (NR4269 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement at which time you waived...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6929 13

    Original file (NR6929 13.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. After waiving your procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1844 14

    Original file (NR1844 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Subsequently, he was notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement, at which time he...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7094 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7094 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...