Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06293-06
Original file (06293-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100

 TJR
 Docket No: 6293-06
16 March 2007








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 13 March 2007. 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.
You enlisted in the Navy on 31 August 2004 at age 19 and served without disciplinary incident until 21 April 2005, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for underage drinking. The punishment imposed was a $642 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, and restriction and extra duty for 45 days. The reduction was suspended for six months. However, the suspension was vacated due to your continued misconduct, and on 6 June 2005 you received NJP for consuming alcoholic beverages aboard your ship, larceny of a laptop computer, drunk and disorderly conduct, and using indecent language. The punishment imposed was a $1,284 forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty for 45 days.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 22 June 2005 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and on 23 June 2005, you were so discharged. 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 and post service conduct. It also considered your assertion that your discharge was unjust because you were not afforded counseling for your alcohol abuse, not given a second chance, and were reduced in paygrade. The Board further considered your desire to reenlist in another branch of the service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change in the reenlistment code because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct. Finally, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged due to misconduct. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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 Boards, attention: Naval Discharge Review Board, 720 Kennon Street, S. E., Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC 20374-5023 for consideration of an upgrade of your
 discharge and a change in your narrative reason for discharge.
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



Enclosure



2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08369-06

    Original file (08369-06.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.You enlisted in the Navy on 13 April 2004 at age 20. On 22 August 2005 the discharge authority...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06853-00

    Original file (06853-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The punishment imposed was a $1,260 forfeiture of pay, The Board found you reenlisted in the Navy on 25 April 1990 after Your record reflects that six years of prior honorable service. case, the Board concluded your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09184-04

    Original file (09184-04.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.You enlisted in the Navy on 3 October 1985 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident until 11...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01178-07

    Original file (01178-07.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.You reenlisted in the Navy on 30 March 1982 after nearly five years of honorable service. On 4...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04638-02

    Original file (04638-02.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. On 15 January 1985 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for larceny and were awarded a $300 forfeiture of pay, a portion of which was suspended for six months. Shortly thereafter, on 28 October 1987, you received The reduction and forfeitures were suspended for six The punishment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02782-06

    Original file (02782-06.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.You reenlisted in the Navy on 1 April 1987 after three years of prior honorable service. You were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05571-06

    Original file (05571-06.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.You enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 7 February 1987 and began a period of active duty on 11 February...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07515-00

    Original file (07515-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a An ADB recommended you be issued a After consulting with legal However, the discharge authority...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05149-03

    Original file (05149-03.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.You reenlisted in the Navy on 14 November 1980 after three years of prior honorable service. On that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05421-02

    Original file (05421-02.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2003. 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...