Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6971 14_Redacted
Original file (NR6971 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JDR
Docket No: 6971-14
5 August 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

23 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

27 October 1983, and served without disciplinary incident for
about a year. Although no punitive action was taken, on

16 November 1984 you confessed to using marijuana and were
placed in a substance abuse rehabilitation program. During the
period from 2 May 1985 to 16 August 1986, you had four civil
arrests, resulting in a civil conviction of reckless driving and
driving under the influence. On 5 February 1985, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) and
three specifications of failure to obey a lawful order. During
the period from 5 February 1985 to 29 July 1985, you were
formally counseled on three occasions due to your nomination for
advancement being withdrawn, overindulgence in alcoholic
beverages resulting in civil arrest, and for the medical
department being found in an unsatisfactory condition after
inspection. You received inpatient treatment from 23 February
to 1 April 1986 at the Alcohol Rehabilitation Center (ARC) Naval
Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida. On 15 April and

30 May 1986, you received (NUP) for two specification of failing
to obey a lawful order, a period of four days of UA, and being
absent from your appointed place of duty. On 17 August 1986,
you received NJP for being absent from your appointed place of

duty.

Subsequent to the foregoing misconduct, administrative discharge
action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. At that time you elected to waive your procedural
rights. Your case was forwarded, recommending discharge under
other than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason of misconduct
due to a pattern of misconduct. The separation authority
approved this recommendation and directed an OTH discharge. On
10 September 1986, 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 served your country honorably as a
member of the military and as a civilian in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge given the seriousness of your repeated misconduct
which resulted in NJP for ten violations of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice and four civil arrests. Further, with regard
to your assertion, the Board recognized your service in Iraq and
Afghanistan. However, the severity of your repeated misconduct
substantially outweigh any mitigation created by your military
and civil service. In this regard, the Board noted that after
rehabilitation treatment and after you were counseled and warned
that further misconduct could result in administrative
separation, you committed more offenses. Finally, the Board
noted that you waived your procedural rights which may have
resulted in a 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 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 1s 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.

 

ERT J. O' NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07493-07

    Original file (07493-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 24 March 1984 at age 18. On 3 May 1985 you were arrested for driving...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2404 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR2404 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12070 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR12070 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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 Board, in its review of your entire record and application with supporting documentation, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12070 14

    Original file (NR12070 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2015.. Asa result, you were processed for an administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to drug under other ‘than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, which was in direct Gisregard to the Navy's ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy, and conviction by civil authorities for possession of marijuana. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4915 14

    Original file (NR4915 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. Regarding your assertion, alcohol abuse may be a mitigating factor for misconduct; however, the Board felt your multiple incidents of misconduct prior...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2404 14

    Original file (NR2404 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval: Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on - “ 10.April 2015... Finally, the Board concluded that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) decision to recharacterize your service to “Honorable” for the --: sole purpose of receiving benefits does not negate your misconduct while: serving on active. for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on- the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR477 14

    Original file (NR477 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. You were so discharged on 21 May 1986.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02455-06

    Original file (02455-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 insufficientto establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 30 January 1984 at age 18. About three months later, on 19...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7097 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7097 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_17_36 CDT 2000

    Further, other individuals stated that you did not notify the command until the third duty day after the arrest. You contend that the arrest was reported on the first day back to work; you were directed not to have any contact with anyone on board the submarine, and therefore could not obtain any witnesses; the executive officer threatened further adverse action if you appealed the NJP; and you were told that you would receive additional alcohol rehabilitation prior to discharge. ...