Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5106 14
Original file (NR5106 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: 5106-14
4 June 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

19 May 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

28 June 1976. During the period from 9 December 1976 to

7 February 1978, you received four nonjudicial punishments
(NJPs). On 22 March 1978, a Physical Evaluation Board found you
physically unfit to perform your duties and recommended that you
be separated from the Navy. Subsequently, after being afforded
all of your procedural rights, it was directed that you be
separated from active duty. You received a general discharge on
12 April 1978.

Characterization of service is based in part on conduct marks
assigned on a periodic basis. Your conduct average was 2.8. At
the time of your service, a conduct average of 3.0 was required
for a fully honorable characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service, desire to upgrade your characterization
of service, and belief that your discharge would automatically
change after six months. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your
characterization of service given your misconduct resulting in
four NJP’s, and failure to attain the required average in
conduct. Finally, you are advised that there is no provision of
law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of
a discharge automatically after six months or due solely to the
passage of time. 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,

   
      

OBERT J. O* NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08166-00

    Original file (08166-00.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2001. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this period of UA. However, the Board concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant a change in the characterization of your service because of your frequent misconduct, which resulted in six disciplinary actions, and since your conduct average...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7480 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7480 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 30 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. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of another court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08848-08

    Original file (08848-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2009. 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 | CY2013 | NR3140-13

    Original file (NR3140-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2014. On 14 July 1978 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed a general discharge by reason of unsuitability, and on 21 July 1978, you were so separated. -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 | CY2007 | 07044-07

    Original file (07044-07.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 enlisted in the Navy on 12 August 1976 at age 18. On 21 December 1978, during an interview...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4632 13

    Original file (NR4632 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2014. The Board also noted that you were fortunate to have been retained on active duty to earn a better characterization of service after your second SPCM for a very lengthy period of UA. 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 | CY2008 | 07235-08

    Original file (07235-08.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. Given your repetitive misconduct and failure to attain the behavior mark average required for a fully honorable characterization of service, the Board found that your service warranted a general characterization of service, and further noted that you were fortunate to have received such a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08780-07

    Original file (08780-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 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 | CY2014 | NR1815 14

    Original file (NR1815 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 3 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3840-13

    Original file (NR3840-13.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 March 2014. 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...