DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 03726-08
2 April 2009
This is in refer¢nce to your application for correction of your
naval record purguant 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 31 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 3 September 1987 after eight years
of honorable service. On 16 February 1988, you began a period of
unauthorized absence (UA) that lasted 78 days, ending with your
apprehension on 4 May 1988. On 1 June 1988, you were convicted
by special court-martial (SPCM) of that period of UA and missing
movement. You were sentenced to a reduction in paygrade, a
forfeiture of pay, and confinement.
On 18 August 1988, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense. You waived your right to consult with counsel,
submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative
discharge board (ADB).
On 22 August 1988, your commanding officer forwarded his
recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct. On 20 September 1988, the
discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by
reason of misconduct. On 28 September 1988 you were so
discharged.
The Board, in its review of your 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 recharacterization
of your discharge given your conviction by SPCM for a period of
UA lasting over two months and the serious offense of missing
movement. Further, you waived the right to an ADB, your best
chance for retention or a better characterization of service.
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 | CY2013 | NR8690 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 September 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. On 25 January 1989, the ADB found that you committed misconduct (commission of a serious offense) and recommended that you be separated with an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06046-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10654-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 2011. 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02220-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 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. On 30 July 1990, the ADB recommended separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02399-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2005. 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 record fails to reflect whether you were tried by SPCM, however, you received the 0TH discharge on 21 July 1989.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04111-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged due to misconduct.
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 | CY2006 | 09598-06
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.On 25 July 1985 you enlisted in the Navy at age 18 and served without incident for more than 18...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03555-06
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 Navy on 22 November 1988 at age 20. On 17 April 1989 you were counseled and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02335-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 2005. 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. With regard to your contention, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support it.