Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11169-07
Original file (11169-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

CRS
Docket No: 11169-07

27 June 2008

 

 

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 25 June 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material

error or injustice.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 4 January 2001.
You received three nonjudicial punishments for offenses that
included assault, provoking speech, insubordination, and failure
to obey a lawful order. On 17 December 2003 you received an
honorable discharge by reason of physical disability and were
assigned a reentry code of RE-4.

 

The Board concluded that your three nonjudicial punishments were
sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reentry code and
that you have not demonstrated that it would be in the interest
of justice for the Board to award a more favorable 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8639 13

    Original file (NR8639 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 June 2014. The Board noted that an RE-3P is the most favorable reentry code that may be assigned to individuals who are separated by reason of a diagnosed personality disorder. 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 | CY2007 | 10707-07

    Original file (10707-07.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. As service members do not have the right to reenlist at the expiration of their enlistments, you would not be entitled to reinstatement or reenlistment even if the Board were to determine that you had not used illegal drugs. Since you have not established that you should have been...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10116-07

    Original file (10116-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 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 | CY2010 | 10699-10

    Original file (10699-10.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. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reentry code. 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 | CY2007 | 04008-07

    Original file (04008-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. 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 | 07572-08

    Original file (07572-08.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. The Board concluded that it would not be in the interest of justice to assign you a more favorable reentry code. 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 | CY2006 | 08175-06

    Original file (08175-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 February 2008. On 28 April 1988 your commanding officer recommended that you be separated from the Navy Reserve with a discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, i.e., the 47 seven day period of unauthorized absence. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10188-07

    Original file (10188-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 September 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. record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04101-11

    Original file (04101-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 August 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 | CY2008 | 05691-08

    Original file (05691-08.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. The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 28 August 2000. 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.