Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4318 14
Original file (NR4318 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: 4318-14
24 April 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.

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

22 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 Reserve and began a period of active
duty on 2 September 1986. You served for nine months without
disciplinary incident, but during the period from 20 March 1987
to 5 May 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four
occasions. Your offenses were unauthorized absence, missing
ship’s movement and disobeying a lawful order.

Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct
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 other than honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. The discharge
authority approved this recommendation and directed separation
under other than honorable conditions by reason misconduct, and
on 27 May 1988, 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 to be eligible for medical
benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and
assertion that you did not have representation during your
discharge process. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case
because of the seriousness of your repeated misconduct.
Regarding your assertion, the Board noted that you waived the
right to legal counsel and ADB, your best opportunity for
retention or a better characterization of service. Accordingly,
your application has been denied.

The Board believes that under current regulations you may be
eligible for veterans’ benefits which accrued during your first
period of service. Whether or not you are eligible for benefits
is a matter under the cognizance of the DVA and you should
contact the nearest office of the DVA concerning your right to
apply for benefits.

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 OF Injustice,

Sincerely

ROBERT J. O’NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7642 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7642 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 8 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 | CY2007 | 08067-07

    Original file (08067-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your repetitive...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00610-05

    Original file (00610-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2005. 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 | CY2007 | 03861-07

    Original file (03861-07.rtf) 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 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 en1ist~d in the Navy on 1 December 1986 at age 22 and served for one year and four months without...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07698-07

    Original file (07698-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 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. 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 | CY2009 | 09659-09

    Original file (09659-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 2010. 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 counselled regarding this misconduct and advised that, although you were being retained, any further misconduct, especially drug related...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2415 14

    Original file (NR2415 14.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. , You reenlisted in the Navy on 27 June 1983, after more than three years and nine months of prior service. 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 | NR646 14

    Original file (NR646 14.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. 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 | NR1610 14

    Original file (NR1610 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 24 February 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 drug abuse at which time you waived your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04907-09

    Original file (04907-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 2010. 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 7 March 1988, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.