DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 805-08
1 December 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 25 November 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 Naval Reserve on 28 September 1982 at age 20
and began a period of active duty on 1 December 1982. About
three months later, on 10 March 1983, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for disrespect, misbehavior as a sentinel, and
failure to obey a lawful order. On 25 April 1983 you received
your second NJP for using provoking speech or gestures.
During the month of March 1984 you were counselled on two
occasions for disobedience, failure to stand a proper watch, and
failure to accept the responsibilities of your watch.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative discharge
by reason of convenience of the government due to unsatisfactory
performance as evidenced by your failure to perform your duty
assignments satisfactorily. As a result, on 11 May 1984, while
serving in paygrade E-2, you were so discharged under honorable
conditions. At that time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment
code .
On 3 January 2001 the Board upgraded the characterization of your
service to honorable based on your sufficiently high overall
trait averages. However, the narrative reason for separation
remained as convenience of the government due to unsatisfactory
performance.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, upgraded characterization of service, and desire to
change your reenlistment code. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change of your
reenlistment code because of your unsatisfactory performance,
repeated counselling, and disciplinary infractions which resulted
in two NUPs. Finally, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when
a Sailor, serving in paygrade E-2, is not recommended for
reenlistment because of unsatisfactory performance. 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,
\p
W. DEAN PFENF
Executive ettor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07047-07
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.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 19 January 1981 at age 18. The punishment imposed was extra duty and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06382-07
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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10915-06
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 entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program of the Navy on 17 December 1982 at age 21, and began a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00265-03
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 13 April 1984, the separation authority directed that you be separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct. The Board also considered the contentions you made in an attachment to your application.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08040-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 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. 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 | CY2002 | 07508-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 May 2003. On 14 April 1983 you received NJP for breach of peace and assault and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to paygrade E-2, and a $250 forfeiture of pay. 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 | 07529-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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. About four months later, on 2 November 1984, you were convicted by SPCM of a 48 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 63...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08858-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 June 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 | CY2007 | 08548-07
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. On 22 March 1984, the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason 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 | CY2007 | 04616-07
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.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 8 September 1982 at age 23 and served without disciplinary incident until...