DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TAL
Docket No: 6741-14
23 July 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
24 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 and began a period of active duty on
3 November 1988. You served for a year and two months without
disciplinary incident, but during the period from
23 January 1990 to 6 April 1990, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) on two occasions. Your offenses were absence
from your appointed place of duty, using disrespectful language
toward a noncommissioned officer, failure to obey a lawful
order, unauthorized absence (UA).
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due commission of a serious
offense at which time you waived your procedural rights to
consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 8 June 1990, you were so
discharged. On 13 November 1995, the Naval Discharge Review
Board (NDRB) upgraded the characterization of your discharge to
general under honorable conditions based on your post service
eonduct .
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your post service achievements and desire to upgrade your
discharge. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct. The Board
noted that you waived your right to an ADB, your best
opportunity for retention or a better characterization of
service. Additionally, the character of service is based, in
part, on conduct and overall trait averages (OTA) which are
computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your
conduct average was 2.8, which was below the OTA of 3.0 required
at the time of your separation for a fully honorable
characterization. The NDRB upgrade of your characterization to
general is the appropriate reflection of your military 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 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’NEILLL
Executive Director
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 | 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 | NR520 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 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 | CY2009 | 04567-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 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. On 27 June 1990, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02245-11
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 did-not consider whether to upgrade your discharge or change the reason for separation because you have not exhausted your administrative remedy of applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4958 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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. You were so discharged on 31 August 1990.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2938-13
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 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3503 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3840 14
A _ three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on * 5 . 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 | 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...