Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7279 14_Redacted
Original file (NR7279 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

 

TAL
Docket No: 7279-14
30 July 2015

Dear Mr. Reed:

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10, 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 that 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

17 April 1994. You served for four years and six months without
disciplinary incident, but on 2 October 1998, you were
apprehended by civil authorities and place in confinement. On
27 September 1999, you were convicted in civil court of indecent
liberties, aggravated sexual battery and object sexual
penetration. The sentence imposed was 12 years confinement,
supervised probation and court costs.

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). Your commanding officer recommended
discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to civilian conviction. The discharge authority
approved this recommendation and directed separation under other
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on

1 December 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 desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion that your
civil conviction should not have had any bearing on your military
obligation. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the
seriousness of your misconduct that resulted in a civil
conviction. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend
your actions, but waived your procedural rights. Regarding your
assertion, regulatory guidelines state that the administrative
separation process encompasses the performance review of a
Sailor's entire record, which includes both military and civilian
communities. In this regard, members of the Armed Forces who are
convicted by civil authorities may be administratively discharged
for misconduct which occurred in either community or the combined
communities. 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

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | NR6992 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR6992 14_Redacted.pdf) 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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2423 14

    Original file (NR2423 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS _7a1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 : TUR Docket No: 2423-14 °23 March 2015 This is in reference’ to your application for correction of your "naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6765 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR6765 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 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 | NR807 14

    Original file (NR807 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 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 | CY2002 | 07317-01

    Original file (07317-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ItGKBtt is assigned when Separation code discharged by reason of misconduct due an individual is to civil conviction.4 q- On 20 June 2001 Petitioner's counsel faxed a supplemental letter of deficiency to NAVPERSCOM responding, in part, as follows to the 4 May 2001 letter from COMPHIBGRU TWO: Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-710 if the (ADB) finds that the preponderance of the evidence does not support one or more of the reasons for separation alleged and recommends retention then the Separation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR13168 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR13168 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 22 July 2015. 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. Specifically, the Board looked to see whether it was a causative factor in your misconduct and weighed it against the severity of your actions.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02500-98

    Original file (02500-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2500-98 14 April 1999 Dears This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United \ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. also married with two daughters, ages 18...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3128 14

    Original file (NR3128 14.pdf) 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. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure, at which time you waived your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board. Nevertheless, the Board found that...