DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY |
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 8618-06
17 July 2007
Dear SAR:
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 17 July 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 13 September 2000 at age 18 and
served without disciplinary incident until 26 April 2003, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for insubordination.
About two months later, on 28 June 2003, you received NUP for
failure to obey a lawful order and inappropriate conduct.
On 16 March and again on 18 April 2004 you received NJP for
dereliction of duty and two specifications of failure to obey a
lawful order. On 8 May 2004 you received your fifth NJP for
larceny and wrongful appropriation of personal property from a
fellow shipmate valued at $250. The punishment imposed was
restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to paygrade
E-1, and a $300 forfeiture of pay.
On 14 May 2004 you were notified of pending administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. At that time you waived your right to consult with
legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB). Subsequently, your commanding officer
recommended a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to a
pattern of misconduct as evidenced by five NUPs. This
recommendation also stated, in part, that you had become an
administrative burden to the command, required constant
supervision, and had become increasingly disrespectful. The
discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed a
general discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 24 May 2004 you
were so discharged and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to reenlist. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change
of the reenlistment code because of the seriousness of your
misconduct, which resulted in five NUPs. Further, a Sailor
separated by reason of misconduct must receive an RE-4
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 PFEL
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03684-07
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 27 September 2005 you received your fourth NUP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty. Further, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is separated by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08619-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2007. 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 2 November 1985 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed a other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06195-09
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. Additionally, after your second NUP, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2008 | 08991-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. application on 22 July 2009. 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 | CY2008 | 11533-08
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. On 19 March 1987, you received NUP for again failure to go to your appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order by drinking while on antabuse. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02004-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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 | CY2012 | 00923 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2012. 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 is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03596-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2009. After waiving your right to cohsult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, and on 8 April 1988, you were so discharged. Consequently,| when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02617-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 December 2009. 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. Additionally, after your third NJP, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03979-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2013. 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 April 1984, your case was heard by the ADB and by a unanimous vote of 3-0 you were recommended for administrative separation with an...