DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY |
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
REC
Docket No: 08313-09
10 June 2010
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 9 June 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred
with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
You enlisted in the Navy on 26 April 2000. On 4 August 2000, you
were arrested for a Class D felony for stealing 4 case of beer
from a closed grocery store. Between 23 March 2001 and 13 April
2003, you received seven nonjudicial punishments (NUJP’s). You
committed the following offenses: 34 instances of being in an
unauthorized absence status (UA), and two instances of failure to
obey a lawful order. On 5 December 2003, administrative
discharge procedures were initiated and you were informed that
you would receive a general discharge for the misconduct and
substandard performance. On 22 December 2003, you were 50
discharged with a general discharge. ‘At that time you were
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth. However, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant any change in reenlistment code, given your
record of seven NUP’s for misconduct. In this regard, an RE-4
reenlistment code.is required when an individual is discharged
prior to the expiration of his term of active obligated service
for misconduct and is not recommended for retention. The Board
also noted that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge
since a characterization under other than honorable conditions ig
often directed when an individual is separated for misconduct.
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 | 08313-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 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 | CY2009 | 02976-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application-on 5 January 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materiai 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00166-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 2011. The Board also noted that you are entitled to submit the attached Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 293} to the Naval Council of Personnel Review Boards, Attention: Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB)}, 720 Kennon Street, SE, Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10537-09
On & October 2006, administrative separation action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an other than honorable discharge. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the reenlistment code or characterization of your discharge, given your record of one NUP and conviction by one SCM. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11371-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 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. On 10 July 2003, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08092-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 2010. On 17 January 1977, you were notified of pending administrative Separation action for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to frequent involvement. 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 | 11730-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2010. 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 injusbice.. 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 | CY2009 | 02505-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 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. Finally, an RE-4 reenlistment code must be assigned to all Sailors discharged due to misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08056-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2011. 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and 4s not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07494-08
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. In March 2005 your commanding officer recommended you be processed for an administrative separation by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure as evidenced by your two civil convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol while enrolled ina Level III rehabilitation aftercare...