DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
TRG
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No: 1223-08
3 December 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 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 30 July 2001 and apparently served
without incident for over four and one half years. On 3 February
2006 you were convicted by a special court-martial of making a
false official statement. The court sentenced you to reduction
to paygrade E-1, forfeiture of $824 pay per month for six months
and confinement at hard labor for six months. The details of the
offense are not filed in your service record. On 29 June 2006
you received a general discharge with a narrative reason for
separation of completion of required active service. At that
time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned
an RE-4 reenlistment code. The DD Form 214 shows a period of
lost time which was apparently the time you spent in confinement.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your apparent period of
good service and contention, in effect, that there is no basis
for the issuance of a general discharge in your case. Your
record is incomplete and the details of the offense for which you
were convicted by the special court-martial are unknown, however,
it was certainly not a minor offense. Because of your conviction
by special court-martial the Board concluded that the discharge
was proper as issued and no change is warranted.
Concerning your request to change your reenlistment code, it is
clear that your last performance evaluation would have been
adverse because of the special court-martial conviction and you
would not have been recommended for reenlistment. Therefore, the
Board concluded that the RE-4 reenlistment code was properly
assigned 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, \
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01875-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 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. Your military record shows that you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court- martial for escape,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04925-08
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. On 7 May 1991 a second special court-martial convened and found you guilty of unauthorized absences totaling 142 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 | CY2009 | 02072-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your _application on 27 May 2009. Further, you were given the opportunity to request an administrative discharge board to contest the discharge processing but elected to waive that right. 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 | CY2001 | 07835-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2002. The Board believed that a record which included three nonjudicial punishments and a conviction by a special court-martial was sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. In addition, regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals serving in pay grade E-2 on completion of an extended period of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08543-07
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You reenlisted in the Navy on 11 January 1980. All of the court-martial sentence was suspended for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05292-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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. You began appellate leave on 18 June 1986 and remained in that status until the bad conduct discharge was issued on 9 March 1987.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05838-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2006. On 29 July 1971 you were convicted by civil authorities of trespassing. Finally, even if you were not in the hands of civil authorities during the entire period from 1973 to 1975, you were either in the hands of civil authorities or in a deserter status.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02825-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07748-07
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 10 November 1967 after four years of prior honorable service. Shortly...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00415-98
Your allegations of error and A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. the Board carefully considered set aside your discharge, The Board also particularly noted counsel's contentions to the effect that no regulations provided for the discharge of an The and you...