Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR517 14_Redacted
Original file (NR517 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

SON
Docket No: 517-14
10 February 2015

 

 

coax

This 18 in reference to your applicatiscn for correction cf 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

21 January 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
LAjUStCLesS.

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on

3 August 1994. On 7 November 1995 and 2 February 1996, you
received two nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for three instances
of dereliction of duty, two instances of failing to go to your
appointed place of duty, and being incapacitated for the proper
performance of duty. Additionally, you were counseled and warned
after your first NUP, that further misconduct could result in
administrative discharge action. Subsequently, administrative
discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to
commission of a serious offense. You waived your rights to
consult counsel, submit a statement, or have your case heard by
an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 12 February 1996,
your case was forwarded to the separation authority, and on

26 March 1996, the separation authority directed that you receive
a general discharge by reason of misconduct. You were so
discharged on 12 April 1996.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of, service, post service accomplishments, desire to
upgrade your discharge, and assertion that your were dealing with
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) while on active duty.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
your two NUP’s for serious offenses. Regarding your assertion
that you were suffering from PTSD while on active duty, the Board
may only consider assertion of PTSD when an applicant presents
clear evidencé’ that the PTSD is service connected and related to
the alleged error or injustice. Despite stating that you were
dealing with PTSD while on active duty, the Board determined it
insufficient to warrant relief since there is no evidence in the
record to support your assertion of PTSD. 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.

Sincerely

   

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR517 14

    Original file (NR517 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 21 January 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your first NJP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • 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 | NR510 14

    Original file (NR510 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 21 January 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, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement.

  • 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 | NR1782 14

    Original file (NR1782 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. Subsequently, on 15 November 1994, administrative discharge action was initiated disorder, You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement, or have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7443 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7443 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 S 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. 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 | NR0896 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR0896 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 18 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, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7087 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7087 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. In regard to your assertions, the Board determined that your allegations of harassment and discrimination do not excuse your misconduct or failure...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR896 14

    Original file (NR896 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11768 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR11768 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 14 Aprii 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...