DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 0090-09
22 October 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 16 October 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 12 December 1989, and served without
disciplinary incident until 30 November 1990, when you received.
nonjudicial punishment. (NUP) for unauthorized absence (UA) in
excess of 15 days and missing ship’s movement.
Shortly thereafter, you received the following NJP’s: on 10
November 1992, for provoking speech or gesture, assault, and
drunk and disorderly conduct; on 31 March 1993, for UA; and on 24
June 1993, for UA. On 29 October 1993, you were separated at the
end of your obligated service with an honorable discharge and an
RE-4 reenlistment code.
You are advised that in order to be recommended for reenlistment,
a service member must be serving in pay grade E-4 or serving in
pay grade E-3 with a recommendation for promotion at the
completion of his initial term of active duty. Your record shows
you were serving as an E-1 upon discharge.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant a change to your reenlistment code due ©
your misconduct and failure to meet professional growth criteria.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00506-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 October 2005. 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 7 March 1993, while serving in paygrade E-2, you were honorably released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01495-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. Therefore, you were recommended for separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to your misconduct and conviction at a SPCM. 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 | 00066-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 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 5 February 1993, the ADB voted to administratively separate you for misconduct with a general discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11822-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11747-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with alii 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 | CY2008 | 08042-08
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 | CY2009 | 00199-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 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 | CY2008 | 09336-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2009. The separation authority approved the recommendation and on 26 February 1993, you were separated with an OTH discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment code. 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 | 00512-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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. After appellate review, on 7 February 1994, you received the BCD.