DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 02282-08
6 March 2009
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 3 March 2009. 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on
27 March 1985 at age 20. On 15 April and 20 December 1985, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for absence from your
appointed place of duty, and altering a government check. Based
on the information currently contained in your record it appears
you served without incident for over three years until 21 June
1989, when you were convicted by general court-martial (GCM) of
seven specifications of larceny and two instances of
communicating a threat. You were sentenced to confinement, a
reduction in paygrade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,
fined, and a dishonorable discharge (DD). You received the
DD after appellate review was completed. At that time you were
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and overall record of service. Nevertheless, the
Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
vecharacterization of your discharge or changing your
reenlistment code given your two NJP’s and conviction by GCM for
very serious offenses. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment
code is required when an individual is discharged due to
misconduct. 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,
W. DEAN PFE
Executive
NO
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08643-08
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. You were placed on appellate leave from 1995 to 1997, and were finally discharged on 5 March 1997, with a DD and an RE-4 reenlistment code due to your conviction at a GCM. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04262-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2009. 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 | CY2008 | 04848-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2009. Therefore, on 8 May 1995, you were separated from naval service with a BCD and an RE-4 reenlistment code due to your conviction at a GCM. 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 | CY2008 | 10140-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, reguiations, and policies. With regard to your reenlistment code, the Board found no factors to warrant a change, which was based on your disciplinary record and substandard behavior. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged due to misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01618-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 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 | CY2009 | 02686-09
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07704-08
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. You were recommended for separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to your 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 | CY2009 | 01591-09
- A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. 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 | CY2008 | 07656-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 2009. You initially enlisted in the Navy from 1977 to 1981, and you | received an honorable discharge and an RE-R1 reenlistment 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 | CY2009 | 03048-09
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 October 1985.