Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08762-08
Original file (08762-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5106 .

 

TUR
Docket No: 8762-08
14 July 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 7 July 2009. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 25 June 2002 at age 17 and began a
period of active duty on 17 June 2003. You served without
disciplinary infraction until March 2005 when you were counselled
regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct,
specifically, three periods of unauthorized absences (UA),
unsatisfactory performance, and writing checks with insufficient
funds. On 23 March 2005 you received nonjudicial punishment

(NUP) for a two day period of UA. About two months jater, on 31
May 2005, you were again counselled regarding your unsatisfactory
performance. Your superiors stated, in part, that you had
destroyed all of your creditability, there was no longer any
shred of trust or faith in your statements, and you had become an
administrative burden as evidenced by your NUP and numerous
financial issues.
i...)

 

As a result of the foregoing, on 5 June 2005, you were advised
that you were not recommended for reenlistment and would be
assigned a restrictive reenlistment code of RE-4 because of your
pattern of misconduct. On 11 June 2005 you received your second
NUP for absence from your appointed place of duty.

On 13 June 2005 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. At that time you waived your right to consult with
legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB). Subsequently, your commanding officer
recommended discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. On 14 June 2005 the discharge authority approved
this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue
you a general discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 17 June

2005 you were so discharged and were assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to change your reenlistment code so that
you may reenlist in the armed forces. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge of a change your
reenlistment code because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct which resulted in two NUJPs and multiple counselling
for your repetitive misconduct. Further, you were given an
opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your procedural right
to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an ADB.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.

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,

    
  

. EAN
Executive D

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08040-08

    Original file (08040-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 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 | CY2009 | 02393-09

    Original file (02393-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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. 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 | 12857-09

    Original file (12857-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 November 1994, you received your second NUP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 30 days and a $388 forfeiture of pay, which was suspended for six months. In this regard, the Board determined that a personal...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07589-10

    Original file (07589-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TUR Docket No: 7589-10 27 May 2011 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. 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. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08619-06

    Original file (08619-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 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. On 2 November 1985 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed a other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02392-09

    Original file (02392-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RK three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2010. Documentary material congidered 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 23 March 1988 you received NUP for two periods of UA totalling two days, failure to obey a lawful order, and four periods of absence from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08019-08

    Original file (08019-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 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 | 01536-10

    Original file (01536-10.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 October 2010. Shortly thereafter, you were notified of administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, and waived your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11357-10

    Original file (11357-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 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 | CY2010 | 03443-10

    Original file (03443-10.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 February 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...