DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 08643-08
22 June 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 4 June 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 first enlisted in the Navy from 22 July 1987 to 22 March
1990, and received an honorable discharge. You reenlisted in the
Navy on 23 March 1990, and served without disciplinary incident
until 3 August 1990, when you received nonjudicial punishment for
unauthorized absence (UA) in excess of 60 days and missing ship’s
movement .
Additionally, on 14 September 1993, you were convicted at a
general court-martial (GCM) for UA in excess of one year and two
months, conspiracy, and forgery. As a result of your court-
Martial conviction, you received a dishonorable discharge (DD).
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.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and belief that enough time has elapsed to warrant
upgrading your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of the seriousness of your misconduct.
Further, there is no provision in the law or regulations that
allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the
passage of time. 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,
Vole
W. DEAN PF
Executive CRO
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09517-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 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 | CY2010 | 11234-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2011. 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 | CY2009 | 01590-09
- 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 | 04025-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2009. Shortly thereafter, you received the following NJP’s: on 26 February 1987, for failure to report to your appointed place of duty; on 26 July 1987, for an unauthorized absence (UA); and on 7 August 1987, for UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00429-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 2010. On 3 January 1957, you were convicted at a general court-martial (GCM) of UA in excess of 45 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 | CY2013 | NR321 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2013. 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 | 07682-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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 error...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07667-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 2009. You were recommended for separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to drug abuse. 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 | 09013-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 July 2009. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your 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 | 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...