DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN . ;
Docket No: 07653-08
8 May 2009
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 6 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 on 4 September 1979, and served without
disciplinary incident until 2 June 1981, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA).
Shortly thereafter, you received the following NJP’s: oh 19
January 1981, for UA and disobeying a lawful order by a
commissioned officer; and on 6 August 1981, for UA. You were
recommended for separation with a general discharge, even though
your separation was a result of substandard performance and for
the convenience of the government. The separation authority
approved the recommendation and on 17 August 1981, you were
separated with a general discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Characterization of service is based on marks assigned on
periodic basis. An overall trait average of 3.0 was required for
a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of your
discharge. Your overall trait average was 2.95.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your contention that you would like to reenlist in the Navy.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code given
your adverse performance evaluations and failure to meet the
overall trait average. 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,
© ened TO
, ROBERT D.“ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00159-99
in your record. Regulations required the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals discharged command due to substandard performance or by reason of inability to adapt to military service." The Board noted that you have applied for the Navy The Board also noted that the commanding and that your contention that You contend that you NJPs in only 16 months of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10872-07
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.On 27 September 1979, you enlisted in the Naval Reserve at age 18 and began a period of active service...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10638-08
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. Furthermore, on 25 February 1964, you received another NJP for UA. Consequentiy, 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 | 10872-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 July 2008. Characterization of service is determined by a service member's conduct, actions, performance and marks assigned on a periodic basis. Given your NUP's and failure to attain the behavior mark average required for a fully honorable characterization of service, the Board found that your period of active service warranted a general characterization of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09807-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 March 2007. 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 or contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03496-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 00870-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. 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 | CY2000 | 08166-00
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2001. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this period of UA. However, the Board concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant a change in the characterization of your service because of your frequent misconduct, which resulted in six disciplinary actions, and since your conduct average...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07199-98
A three-member panel of the Board.for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. The punishment imposed was restriction for 30 On 23 November 1977 you received NJP paygrade E-3 and Your record further reflects that during the period from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12014-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 2011. 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. Therefore, you were recommended for administrative separation with a general discharge due to unsuitability.