DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMW
Docket No: 5732-07
7 February 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval vreeoerd pursuant toe the provisions of title 16 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 6 February 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.
On 20 May 1987, you enlisted in the Navy at age 19. During the
period 14 to 18 February 1988, you were in an unauthorized
absence (UA) status, but it appears that no disciplinary action
was taken. On 10 March 1988, you were counseled regarding
deficiencies in your performance and conduct. On 29 April 1988,
you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for four instances of brief
periods of UA. You were also counseled regarding deficiencies in
your performance and conduct. On 23 June 1988, you had NUP for
four instances of absence from restriction muster, dereliction in
the performance of your duties, and making a false official
statement.
On 23 June 1988, your commanding officer initiated administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious
offense. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged
that separation could result in an other than honorable (OTH)
discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an
administrative discharge board. During the period 26 June to
6 July 1988, you were in a UA status, but it appears that no
disciplinary action was taken. On 2 July 1988, the separation
authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed an
OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense. On 8 July 1988, you were separated with a
general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to members who are discharged due to misconduct. Given the
reason for discharge and since you have been treated no
differently than others in your situation, 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01582-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and elected to have your case heard by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10216-07
On 2 December 1991, you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 7 August 1992, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00488 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. On 30 May 1991 you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08719-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02222-08
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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05965-08
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. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10611-06
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 entirerecord, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 22 May 1987 you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. In connection with this processing, you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05741-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2008. On 15 January 1990, you began a UA that ended on 3 February 1990, a period of about 19 days. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10247-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 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. On 1i.September 1989, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04581-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 February 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your service due to the seriousness of...