DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 08655-0608
16 June 2009
Dear Shae:
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 enlisted in the Navy on 22 August 1989, and served without
disciplinary incident until 24 March 1990, when you were in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status for 29 days, and then UA again
‘for another 12 days. Further, when you were in a UA status, you
committed a civil offense and on 12 March 1991, you were tried
and convicted in civil court for forgery and uttering bad checks.
Furthermore, you committed another civil offense and you were
retained in confinement. On 24 September 1991, you were tried in
civil court and found guilty of malicious wounding and abduction.
Therefore, on 14 February 1992, you were separated with an other
than honorable discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment code due to
your civil conviction.
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 changing the
characterization of your discharge due to 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,
\Svon Sal
W. DEAN PF
Executive e
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08387-08
On 21 December 1990, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction, commission of a serious offense, and drug abuse. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged the separation action and that it could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge, waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), and submitted a statement in which you stated in essence that withdrawal symptoms from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03201-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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 | CY2008 | 01582-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 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 connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and elected to have your case heard by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03537-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 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 | CY2009 | 07353-09
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 | 08508-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05767-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on i8 May 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. On 4 February 1992 you were again convicted by SCM of a 28 day period of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06952-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 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. 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 | 03279-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged due to misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03441-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 9 December 1992, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation, but the separation action was subsequently suspended due to...