DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 09009-08
10 August 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 5 August 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 23 September 1987, and served without
disciplinary incident until 5 February 1988, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NIP) for failure to obey a lawful order
and a general orders violation.
Shortly thereafter, you received the following NJP’s: on
11 September 1988, failure to obey a lawful order, provoking
speech or gesture, and a general orders violation; and on 6
January 1989, for two specifications of failure to obey a lawful
order. You were recommended for separation with an other than
honorable (OTH) discharge for a pattern of misconduct, and the
separation authority approved the recommendation, Therefore, on
4 April 1989, you were separated with an OTH discharge and 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 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 your serious 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,
\ see
.W. DEAN PF
Executive reetor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00142-09
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08651-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2009. Shortly thereaftér,' you received the following NUP’s: on 12 December 1986, for the illegal use of drugs (cocaine) and UA; on 19 February 1987, for UA and failure to obey a lawful order; on 26 February 1988, for UA; on 26 October 1988, for UA, disrespect toward a petty officer, failure to obey a lawful regulation, being drunk on duty, and communicating...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02899-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 December 2008. 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 | 13077-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 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 24 April 1989 you received the OTH.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10039-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 duly 2009. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire ‘ yecord, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 17 August 1989, you were notified that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation processing with an other...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03608-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 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. At that time you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05735-09
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. The Board noted you were counseled and warned after your first NUP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2011 | 04208 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Neval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 February 2012. 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 | CY2011 | 00060-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02874-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. The separation authority approved these recommendations and directed an OTH discharge with an RE-4 reenlistment code, and on 18 October 1991, you were so discharged. 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.