DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 7207-05
19 October 2005
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 12 October 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.
You enlisted in the Navy on 12 March 1979 at age 18. On 26 July 1979 you
received nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence of about 23
days. At that time, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct
could lead to processing for discharge under other than honorable
conditions. Subsequently, you were assigned adverse marks of 2.8 in four
evaluation categories. On 21 November 1979 you received another nonjudicial
punishment for two periods of unauthorized absence totaling about 27 days.
Based on the foregoing record of misconduct and your apparent inability to
adapt to military life, you were processed for discharge by reason of
unsuitability. At that time, you waived your procedural rights and did not
object to discharge. After review, the discharge authority directed
discharge. You were issued a general discharge on 6 December 1979. At that
time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
Character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait
averages, which are computed from marks assigned during periodic
evaluations. As indicated, you were only evaluated on one occasion and
received four adverse marks, including a 2.8 mark in conduct. A minimum
average mark of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation
for a fully honorable characterization of service.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and claim that
immaturity led to your difficulties while in the Navy. You contend that you
have been a good citizen for many years. The Board found that these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
your disciplinary record and failure to achieve the required average marks
in conduct. The Board concluded that your discharge by reason of
unsuitability was proper as issued and no change is warranted.
Regulations required the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an
individual was discharged because of unsuitability. Since you have been
treated no differently than others who were discharged for that reason, the
Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the RE-4
reenlistment code.
Concerning the handwritten entries on your DD Form 214, you should know
that regulations in effect at the time of your discharge required that
dashes be placed in the authority, reason and reenlistment code blocks of
the DD Form 214. Of course, those entries were required on the file copy of
the DD Form 214 so that the information would be available to future
reviewers. It appears that you have misplaced the original DD Form 214 and
have obtained a copy of the DD Form 214 in your file. Since the proper
procedures apparently were followed, there is no basis for a correction to
the DD Form 214.
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
2
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of
probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4927 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 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. On 18 January 1980, you received the general discharge (unsuitability-personality disorder), and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00214-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. Board found that these factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your service on release from active duty, given your disciplinary record and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10952-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 2011. However, the Board concluded that your discharge should not be changed due to your short period of service and insufficiently high overall trait mark average. 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 | CY2006 | 00419-06
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.You enlisted in the Navy on 26 February 1985 at age 17. The Board also considered the statement...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7582 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2014. Characterization of service is based, in part, on trait marks assigned on a periodic basis. 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 | CY2007 | 05521-07
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 6 November 1975, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to unsuitability and characterization of service to be determined by your service record. Nevertheless, the Board found that these...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07973-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your character of service, given your record of one NUP...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06057-00
A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. The report stated that you were not -- On 22 April 1992 you were convicted by special court-martial of use of marijuana in February apparently based on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05836-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, application on 5 June 2001. 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. performance evaluation was sufficient...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07990-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. You were issued a When an individual was discharged due to unsuitability, character service, was based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages computed from...