DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
ES
Docket No: 5425-14
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
27 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 15 July 1981. You served for about nine months without
disciplinary incident, but during the period from 29 April 1982
to 22 July 1983, you received four nonjudicial punishments (NUP)
for absence from appointed place of duty, failure to obey a
lawful order, unauthorized absence and possession of an illegal
weapon. You were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of an
unauthorized absence totaling 56 days and wrongful possession of
marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct,
at which time. you waived your procedural rights. Your
commanding officer recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of
misconduct. On 27 April 1983, the discharge authority approved
this recommendation and directed separation.
On 29 April 1983, the commanding officer requested to the
discharge authority that your separation be held in abeyance.
Although, the documentation for what you were accused of is not
in your record, it appears charges were referred against you to
a special court-martial (SPCM), and on 22 July 1983 you were
convicted and adjudged confinement hard labor, forfeiture of pay
and bad conduct discharge (BCD). After the BCD was approved at
all levels of review, on 23 August 1984, 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, based on
the information currently contained in your record, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant an
upgrade of your discharge given the severity of your misconduct
which resulted in four NUPs, SCM and SPCM. 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 Ji. \O" NETEL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6329 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10773-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted two to one in favor of an under other than honorable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11984-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 10 August 2011. The sentence imposed wag confinement for 45 days, a forfeiture of pay and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). 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 | CY2009 | 01398-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, his naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. However, the convening authority suspended your BCD for a period of 12 months. 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 | NR5108 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. On 22 May 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a 79 day period of UA and sentenced to a $97 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0921 14
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. for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07529-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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. About four months later, on 2 November 1984, you were convicted by SPCM of a 48 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 63...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03027-09
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 found that these factors were not sufficient to.warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of three NUP’s and conviction by two SCM’s and one SPCM for serious misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02439-09
A ches tietiber panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 12 January 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...