Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 10095-04
Original file (10095-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                           2 NAVY ANNEX

                        WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100





            CRS
                                                         Docket No: 10095-
                                                         04
                                                         13 October 2005



                            I


      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.

      A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
      sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28
      September 2005. 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 April 1990. The
      record reflects that you received two nonjudicial punishments. The
      offenses included disrespect, assault, breach of the peace and
      communicating a threat. On 2 November 1991 you were referred to
      special court-martial on charges of assault, use of provoking words
      on two occasions, disrespect and drunk and disorderly conduct. The
      record does not reflect whether a court-martial was actually convened
      or, if it was, whether you were convicted of any or all of these
      charges. Subsequently, you received two more nonjudicial punishments
      for two periods of unauthorized absence and disrespect to the
      commanding officer.

      On 28 December 1991 the commanding officer recommended that you be
      separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of
      misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. After review by the
      discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved
      and you were discharged on 13 January 1992 with an other than
      honorable discharge by reason of misconduct. At that time, you were
      assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.







In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and service in the Army
National Guard. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, due to your
record of frequent involvement with military authorities. Specifically, you
were the subject of four nonjudicial punishments within a period of less
than two years. The Board also noted the unresolved court-martial charges.

Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
when an individual is discharged due to misconduct. Since you have been
treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board could not
find an error or injustice in the assignment of your reenlistment code.

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




                                     W.  DEAN PFEIFFER
                                    Executive Director















                                      2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10056-06

    Original file (10056-06.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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable discharge and elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03093-01

    Original file (03093-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    3093-01 15 October 2001 Dear 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. considered your application on Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 11 October 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The fact...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02153-09

    Original file (02153-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 2009. Documentary marerial 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 ADB voted three to zero in favor of an under other than honorable discharge due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02195-08

    Original file (02195-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of thé Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2008. 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 | 10742-09

    Original file (10742-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2010. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this period of UA. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2010.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08096-10

    Original file (08096-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2011. Your sentence included a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 10 October 1991, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00934-11

    Original file (00934-11.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 November 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. 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 | 04506-09

    Original file (04506-09.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. You were notified that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation with a conditions other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct (pattern of misconduct). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05225-06

    Original file (05225-06.rtf) 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.The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 4 October 1978 at age 17. On 25 July 1980 your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00506-05

    Original file (00506-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 October 2005. 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 7 March 1993, while serving in paygrade E-2, you were honorably released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve.