Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4518 14
Original file (NR4518 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

SIN
Docket No: 4518-14
30 April 2015

 

This is in reference to your application fer correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code, section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 28 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

6 August 1991. On 22 April 1992, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for fraternization, indecent assault, and
disorderly conduct. Subsequently, administrative discharge
action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of
a serious offense. After being afforded all of your procedural
rights, your case was forwarded to the separation authority
recommending that you receive a general discharge by reason of
misconduct. The separation authority concurred and you received
a general discharge on 8 December 1992.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service and desire to upgrade your discharge.
Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant changing your characterization of service
given your misconduct for serious offenses. Finally, the Board
noted that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge
since a discharge under other than honorable conditions is often
directed when an individual is discharged for misconduct.
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.

Singerely,

 
  

 

 

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6501 14

    Original file (NR6501 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 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 IjUustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3845 14

    Original file (NR3845 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 | NR1807 14

    Original file (NR1807 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 10 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 | CY2014 | NR1004 14

    Original file (NR1004 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. You were so ‘discharge on 10 November 1992. : The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6323 14

    Original file (NR6323 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 6 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5982 14

    Original file (NR5982 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 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. With regard to your assertions, the Board considered whether being threatened was a causative factor in the misconduct that resulted in your discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1785 14

    Original file (NR1785 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 3 March 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1004 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR1004 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 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2639 14

    Original file (NR2639 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 25 March 2015. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | NR1810 14

    Original file (NR1810 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    three-member panel of the Board for: Correction of Naval Records, - sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2015. 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 commission of a serious offense.