DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TLG
Docket No: 6501-14
30 April 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. The application was filed in
a timely manner.
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
24 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
IjUustice.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
20 October 1989. You served for about nine months without
disciplinary incident; however, on 31 January 1992, you were
convicted by general court-martial (GCM) of wrongful
appropriation of $522.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense. After waiving your procedural rights, your
commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge
by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
The discharge authority approved this recommendation and
directed separation under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct, and on 2 June 1992, you were so discharge.
At that time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your post service conduct and desire to upgrade your discharge.
Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the
seriousness of your 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
Titi.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3845 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 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 | NR5982 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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. With regard to your assertions, the Board considered whether being threatened was a causative factor in the misconduct that resulted in your discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1807 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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. 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 | NR6323 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5903 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. 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 | NR7592 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 2015. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 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 | 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 | NR6689 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. 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 | 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 | NR1847 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...