DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 5793-09
30 March 2010
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record dated 1 June 2009, in which you requested correction
of your characterization of service and your reentry code. The
Board did not consider your request for correction of your
reentry code, as that request was previously denied, and you have
not submitted any new material evidence concerning that request.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on.18 February 2010. 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.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 24 May 2002.
You received nonjudicial punishment on 19 June 2003 for wrongful
use of hashish. On 20 June 2003 your commanding officer
recommended that you be separated from the Navy with a discharge
under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due
to drug abuse. When informed of that recommendation, you waived
the right to present your case to an administrative discharge
board. After review by the discharge authority, the
recommendation for separation was approved and on 24 June 2003
you were separated by reason of misconduct with a discharge under
other than honorable conditions.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, overall
record of service, and good post service. conduct, as well as your
contention that you did not knowingly spoke hashish, The Board
concluded that those factors are insufficient to warrant the
upgrade of your discharge, given the serious nature of the
misconduct which resulted in your discharge, and the absence of
any evidence which corroborates your contention that you did not
commit the charged offense. Accordingly, your application has
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.
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 or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10553-09
BR three-member panel of the Board» for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive sessiom, -considered your application on 8 July 2010. The discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct for drug abuse. 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 | CY2009 | 09134-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 June 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 oF injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10295-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 24 November 1979 you were notified of pending administrative separation action had been initiated by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. paygrade E-2, On 30 October However, on 20 board (ADB) recommended...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02429-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 September 2003. The Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of misconduct, and especially the lengthy period of unauthorized absence of which you were convicted by the special court-martial. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09598-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 2010. 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 youth, desire to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04319-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navai Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2010. 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 | CY2010 | 01701-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. 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 | CY2008 | 11587-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2009. In its review of your application, the Board carefully considered your contention that you were discharged for the same charges that you were found not guilty of at a special court-martial. 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 | CY2009 | 10532-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 2010. 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. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB) , which voted three to zero in favor of an under other than honorable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06742-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2010. 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...