DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TLG
Docket No: 7666-14
28 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. 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
14 July 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 4 September 1992, and continued to
serve for about five months without disciplinary incident.
However, on 14 January 1993, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NUP) for making a false official statement, fraud, and failure
to pay just debt. Subsequently, you were notified of pending
administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to
a pattern of misconduct. After waiving your procedural rights,
your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. The discharge authority approved this
recommendation and directed separation under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct and on 18 March
1993, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your prior satisfactory service, post service conduct, desire to
upgrade your discharge, letters of recommendations, and
assertion that your characterization of service was too harsh.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant relief given your misconduct. In this
regard, the.Board, concluded that the severity of your misconduct
outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion
that your characterization of service was too harsh.
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’NEITLI
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4014 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR312 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 OF injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4544 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 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 discharge authority concurred with the ADB and directed separation under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 12 October 1994,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5414 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7674 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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. 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 | NR646 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 | NR12036 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2015. 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 you were found guilty of only one theft. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5393 14_Redacted
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. During the period from 27 August 1992 to 24 March 1993, you were again UA on seven occasions for 35 days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5393 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. During the period from 27 August 1992 to 24 March 1993, you were again UA on seven occasions for 35 days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3597 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. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 2 March 1993, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...