Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06984-08
Original file (06984-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SIN
Docket No: 06984-08
22 May 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 19 May 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

1 November 1988 at age 23. During the period from 15 December
1989 to 23 December 1992, you received three nonjudicial
punishments (NUJP’s) for two instances of insubordinate conduct,
assault, disobedience, provoking speeches and gestures, and
dereliction of duty. On 29 December 1992, you were counseled and
warned that further misconduct could result in administrative
discharge action. Unfortunately, on 3 March 1993, you received a
fourth NUP for unauthorized absence.

On 22 March 1993, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. You waived your right to consult with counsel,

submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative
discharge board (ADB). :
On 26 April 1993, your commanding officer forwarded his
recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct. On 26 May 1993, the
discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by
reason of misconduct. On 1 June 1993 you were so discharged. At
-that time, you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

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 concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the reason
or recharacterization of your discharge given your record of four
NIP's, one of which were imposed after you were counseled and
warned concerning the consequences of further misconduct.

Further, you waived the right to an ADB, your best chance for
retention or a better characterization of service. Further, your
RE-4 reenlistment code was assigned based on your disciplinary
record and substandard behavior. 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,

la Daze’ ,
W. DEAN Sek
Executive Digettor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11822-08

    Original file (11822-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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 | 01894-09

    Original file (01894-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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. On 16 April 1993, administrative discharge action was initiated by.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12399-08

    Original file (12399-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2009. On 17 June 1993, the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | 08405-08

    Original file (08405-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 May 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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge and elected to have your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04677-09

    Original file (04677-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 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 | CY2009 | 02957-09

    Original file (02957-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 December 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08760-08

    Original file (08760-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2009. 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. 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 | CY2001 | 04529-01

    Original file (04529-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 February 1995 the Chief of Naval Personnel directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to You were so discharged on commission of a serious offense. The Board concluded that the reenlistment Since you were treated no The Board did not consider the characterization of your discharge since you have not exhausted your administrative remedies by first petitioning the Naval Discharge Review Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05204-02

    Original file (05204-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted and applicable statutes, regulations and Your allegations of error and After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6679 13

    Original file (NR6679 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 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...