DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
SIN
Docket No: 5557-14
4 May 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
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
5 October 1988. On 29 June 1989, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for three days of unauthorized absence,
disorderly conduct, indecent exposure, and communicating a
threat. 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 an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to
misconduct. On 18 October 1989, the separation authority
concurred and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct.
You were so discharged on 23 October 1989.
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 medical issues, and desire
to upgrade your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given your NUP for serious offenses.
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2092 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, - sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 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. The separation authority agreed with the recommendation of the ADB and directed your commanding officer to issue you an OTH discharge by reason of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6666 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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 | NR7365 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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 | NR1811 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2015. 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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2639 14
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 | NR1004 14
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 | NR1004 14_Redacted
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 | NR1785 14
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 | NR4143 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 March 2015. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your first NJP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2013 | NR8883 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was .