DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TLG
Docket No: 6992-14
14 May 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 ina 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
8 May 2015. 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
16 July 1985. On 17 May 1988 you were convicted by civil
authorities of criminal sexual conduct with a minor and
disseminating obscene material to a minor. You were sentenced
to confinement for 22 years.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to civil
conviction. After waiving your procedural rights, your
commanding officer recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to civil
conviction. The discharge authority approved this
recommendation and directed separation under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct and on
8 December 1989, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your characterization of service to
honorable. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors
were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given the
severity of your misconduct in the civilian community.
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
applying for correction of an official naval record, the burden
is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of the probable
material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6359 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6765 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 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, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a conviction by a Civil court.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7279 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2015. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to civilian conviction at which time you waived your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5940 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. On 31 May 1978 you were convicted by civil authorities of aggravated robbery.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5108 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. On 22 May 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a 79 day period of UA and sentenced to a $97 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR807 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 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. 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 | NR7097 14_Redacted
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 | 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 | NR7492 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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 | NR5054 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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...