Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08914-06
Original file (08914-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                             DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                   BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 TRG
 Docket No: 8914-06
8 November2006



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 31 October 2006. 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 23 March 1987 at age 22. During the period from 30 July 1987 to 28 January 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment on three occasions. Your offenses were two instances of assault, an unspecified period of unauthorized absence, disobedience, breaking restriction and breach of the peace. After the second nonjudicial punishment, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could lead to discharge under other than honorable conditions. On 9 June 1988 you received nonjudicial punishment for a short period of unauthorized absence, disobedience, dereliction of duty and use of cocaine. Subsequently, a medical officer found that you were not drug dependent.
Based on the foregoing record, you were processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct. In connection with this processing, you elected to waive the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge. board, but submitted a statement requesting a general discharge. On 28 October 1988, your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. Subsequently, you were an unauthorized absentee for about seven days. After review, the separation authority directed discharge under other than honorable conditions and you were so discharged on 15 December 1988. At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your contention that you did not knowingly use drugs and your desire for veterans’ benefits. The Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the frequency of your misconduct and use of cocaine. The Board was aware that you apparently did not raise the issue of unknowing use of drugs at the time of your nonjudicial punishment and discharge processing. The Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.



Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of misconduct. Since you have been treated no differently than others discharged, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the 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 PFEIEFFER
Executive Director
2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06798-06

    Original file (06798-06.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 an conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Boar found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 2 June 1986 y u enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 12 January 1989 you received NJP for three...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01204-10

    Original file (01204-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 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 | CY2001 | 04338-01

    Original file (04338-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When informed of the recommendation, you elected to waive the right to present your case to an administrative discharge board. The record reflects that you received nonjudicial conducted on 5 February 1988, diagnosed you with a A psychiatric At that time you were assigned Since you have been treated no differently than Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05108-10

    Original file (05108-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 February 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. On 18 August 1988, administrative separation action was initiated by reason of misconduct for drug abuse.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08318-10

    Original file (08318-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. 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 | 02574-09

    Original file (02574-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Recotds, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2010. In March 1988 a second Navy Mental Health evaluation was conducted and you were diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity syndrome, tinea pedis, and alcohol dependence, and directed to complete your confinement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00245-08

    Original file (00245-08.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 its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the length of time since the discharge was issued and your contention that the reason for your discharge should at least be corrected to show that you were separated under other than...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01630-07

    Original file (01630-07.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 enlisted in the Navy on 9 March 1984 at age 18 and began a period of active duty on 22 March 1984....

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08651-08

    Original file (08651-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. Shortly thereaftér,' you received the following NUP’s: on 12 December 1986, for the illegal use of drugs (cocaine) and UA; on 19 February 1987, for UA and failure to obey a lawful order; on 26 February 1988, for UA; on 26 October 1988, for UA, disrespect toward a petty officer, failure to obey a lawful regulation, being drunk on duty, and communicating...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00754-11

    Original file (00754-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the exiatence of probable material error or injustice. 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.