DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMS
Docket No: 401-08
28 August 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 27 August 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.
On 1 November 1989, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On
23 October 1990, you had nonjudicial punishment (NUJP) for a 16
day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and missing the
movement of your ship. You were also 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. On 8 November 1991, you
had NUP for two instances of UA totaling about 17 days and
missing the movement of your ship by design.
On 12 November 1991, your commanding officer initiated
administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to a
pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.
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 5 December 1991, the separation authority
approved the discharge recommendation and directed an OTH
discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. On 10 December 1991, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth,
the passage of time, and your participation in Operation Desert
Storm. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct. The Board
also noted that you waived the right to have your case heard by
an ADB, your best opportunity for retention or a more favorable
characterization of service. Therefore, the Board concluded
that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is
warranted. 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,
Soak .
W. DEAN PF R
Executive D or
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 | CY2010 | 06242-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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 | CY2012 | 00477 12
On 4 May 1990, you were UA for three days, with no disciplinary action taken. On 5 September and 1 October 1990, you were UA one day each, and no disciplinary action was taken against you. On 8 July 1991, you were UA again for one day and no disciplinary action was taken.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05584-07
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. During the period 22 November to 22 December 1986, you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for about 30 days. 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 | CY2012 | 10277 12
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, you were counseled and warned after your first NUP, 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 | CY2010 | 06290-10
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 separation authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 | CY2013 | NR2728-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 2014. 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 | 05217 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2013. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12050 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 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 reentry code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08799-07
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...