Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR962 14
Original file (NR962 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

 

 

  
  

   
   

 

session

oolwWll,

   

names

upon
recommendation for separation. The record clearly shows that on
25 February 2005, you were discharged with an other than
honorable separation by reason of misconduct (pattern of
misconduct) .

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your Gesire to upgrade your daiscnarge ana assertion tnat you were
not given the opportunity to seek legal counsel. Nevertheless,
the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge or to change your reentry
code, given the seriousness of your misconduct. Regarding your
assertion, the Board noted there is no evidence in your record,
and you submitted none, to support your assertion. 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.

 

D ~ ~ mort tT
mr. ua @ ‘NETLOG

&
get aerme, Py theee 5
cutive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5458 14

    Original file (NR5458 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 19 May 2015. application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 27 July 1987, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3458 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR3458 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 25 March 2015. Documentary materia considered by the Board ¢ your application, together with all material submitted in support a : = thereof, your naval Tecora, anda 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3458 14

    Original file (NR3458 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, on 17 October 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 desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion of suffering with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) which existed prior to service. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5845 14

    Original file (NR5845 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 28 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. 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 | NR646 14

    Original file (NR646 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. 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 | NR3065 14

    Original file (NR3065 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 22 October 2014. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 8 November 1993, you were so dischargea ‘The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, ‘carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR517 14

    Original file (NR517 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your first NJP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2657 14

    Original file (NR2657 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A ‘three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered. 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. — Consequentiy, 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 | NR3452 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR3452 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 25 March 2015. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, on 17 October 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 desire to upgrade your discharge and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2777 14

    Original file (NR2777 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 18 November 2014. 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, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of...