DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JDR
Docket No: 6067-14
10 July 2015
Dear i
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 16 June 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
24 February 1997, and served without disciplinary incident for
about a year and three months. However, during the period from
26 May 1998 to 13 May 1999, you were formally counseled on eight
occasions and advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct
due to your failure to inform your command that you filed for
bankruptcy, financial irresponsibility, failure to provide recall
information, unauthorized absence, being absent from your appointed
place of duty, disobeying a lawful order, and causing a self-
inflicted injury. On 19 August 1999, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 10 days.
On 27 August 1999, you were diagnosed with adjustment disorder with
mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.
Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by
reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions and
convenience of the government (COG) on the basis of personality
disorder. At that time you elected to waive your procedural
rights. Your case was forwarded, recommending a general discharge
by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions and
(COG) on the basis of personality disorder. The separation
authority approved and directed a general discharge due to
misconduct and, on 16 September 1999, you were so discharged.
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 discharge, and your
assertion that you did nothing to dishonor the military.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient
to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your
misconduct which resulted in eight formal counselings and one NUP.
Further, the Board noted that you waived your procedural rights
which may have resulted in a better characterization of service.
Finally, with regard to your assertion, the Board believed that
considerable clemency was extended to you, considering your command
did not take punitive action after you violated the Uniform Code of
Military Justice on multiple occasions. 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
prier 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5226 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 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 | NR5226 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 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 | NR10851 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 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 | NR10851 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 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 | NR5393 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. During the period from 27 August 1992 to 24 March 1993, you were again UA on seven occasions for 35 days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5393 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. During the period from 27 August 1992 to 24 March 1993, you were again UA on seven occasions for 35 days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5751 14
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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4519 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03443-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR646 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. 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.