DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JDR
Docket No: 5657-14
29 May 2015
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
22 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, began a period of active duty on
16 June 1981, and served without disciplinary incident for about
10 months. On 4 May 1982, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for a 30 day period of unauthorized absence. On
7 October 1982, you received NUJP for being incapacitated for the
performance of your duties. On 26 February 1984, you were
convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of violating two lawful
general orders and being drunk on duty. You were sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for 30 days, forfeiture of $375 pay
per month for one month, and reduction in grade to E-2. On
23 April 1984, you received NUP for failing to make muster on
two occasions. On 27 August 1984, you were convicted by SCM of
unauthorized absence for a period of 36 days, disobeying a
lawful order, and missing a ships movement. You were sentenced
to confinement at hard labor for 20 days and reduction in grade
to E-1l. On 17 September 1984, your security clearance access
was downgraded to unclassified due to your frequent misconduct.
Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At that
time you acknowledged that, if separated, the characterization
of your service may be under other than honorable conditions.
You also elected to waive your procedural rights. Your case was
forwarded recommending discharge under other than honorable
conditions and the separation authority directed an other than
honorable discharge. You were so discharged on 22 October 1984.
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. It
also considered your assertion that you were told that you would
receive a general discharge under honorable conditions.
Nevertheless, based on the information currently contained in
your record, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge,
given the seriousness of your misconduct which resulted in three
NJPs, two SCMs, and a downgraded security clearance. With
regard to your assertion, the Board noted that your record
contains documentation which reflects that you were notified in
writing of the recommend you for discharge whit an under other
than honorable characterization of service. Additionally, you
initialed your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty (DD Form 214), which indicates that you were aware at that
time of your discharge that the character of service was under
other than honorable conditions. Finally, the Board noted that
you waived your procedural rights which may have resulted ina
better characterization of service. 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 or other matter not previously considered by
the Board within one year from the date of the Board’s decision.
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.
Sincer
OB! ‘
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02811-07
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 youth, period of service without disciplinary incident, time served in Beirut, post service conduct, and the passage of time. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03835-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. On 16 November 1982 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a 15 day period of UA, absence from your appointed place paygrade E-l, a $500 of duty,...
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 | CY2008 | 08040-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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 | CY2014 | NR5425 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. Your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00082-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 2011. 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 two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00639-05
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11635-09
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. On 7 May 1984, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct. On 10 July 1984, your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an under other than honorable discharge due to misconduct for drug abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00149-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3901 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2015. 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.