Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05669-07
Original file (05669-07.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: 5669-07
9 April 2008







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 8 April 2008. 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 July 2002 at age 19 and served for a year and three months without disciplinary incident. However, on 30 October 2003, you received nonjudicjal punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and dereliction of duty. The punishment imposed was extra duty for 30 days and a suspended reduction in rate and forfeitures of pay. At that time you were counselled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative separation. About three months later, on 5 January 2004, you received NJP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were awarded correctional custody for 29 days. Again you were counselled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by two NJPs and repeated counselling. The discharge authority directed separation under honorable conditions, and on 10 November 2004 you were so discharged and 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 assertion that the circumstances surrounding your separation did not warrant an RE-4 reenlistment code. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change of the reenlistment code because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct. Further, an RE-4 reenlistment is required when a Sailor is discharged by reason of misconduct. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
Be advised that Sailors discharged by reason of misconduct normally receive discharges under other than honorable conditions, and that the Board believed you were fortunate to receive a general discharge. Nonetheless, 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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03684-07

    Original file (03684-07.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 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 | CY2007 | 09225-07

    Original file (09225-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the 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. However, on 9 June 1995, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed place of duty.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03885-07

    Original file (03885-07.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 24 June 1982 at age 20 and served without disciplinary incident until 18...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06484-07

    Original file (06484-07.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. Your commanding officer recommended your request be approved, and on 2 August 2004 the discharge authority directed an honorable discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to a reduction in force. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06323-07

    Original file (06323-07.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 April 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The reporting senior stated, in part, as follows: (Member) requires direct supervision to get satisfactory results.... he takes no ownership of any actions and constantly makes excuses for his...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07074-07

    Original file (07074-07.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 1 December 2004 at age 19. On 4 November 2005 your commanding officer...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07049-07

    Original file (07049-07.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 25 October 2000 at age 22. On 19 April 2001 this recommendationwas...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00564-11

    Original file (00564-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 2011. 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 Review Boards, Attention: Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), 720 Kennon Street, SE, Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00546-10

    Original file (00546-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 2010. However, the SARP at Corpus Christi Hospital and your command Drug and Alcohol Program Assistant (DAPA) Ggtermined that you were an alcohol rehabilitation failure and it was recommended that you be separated for not complying with the Peonmended treatment. On 27 February 2008, your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06382-07

    Original file (06382-07.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. December 1984 to 3 May 1985, which was submitted on the occasion of your separation, states that you were not recommended for advancement or retention due to an increase in your weight physical qualifications. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...