DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
*E 2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 196-09
1 September 2009
This is in reference to your request for further consideration of
your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to
the provisions of title 10 of the 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 that. the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 1” August 1978.
On 13 December 1978 you received nonjudicial punishment for
wmissing muster, drinking on duty, and being drunk on duty. A
special court-martial convened on 26 November 1979 and found yu
guilty of unauthorized absences totaling 123 days. The court
sentenced you to confinement at hard labor for two months,
forfeiture of $578.00, reduction in rate to E-l, and a bad
conduct discharge. ‘You received the bad conduct discharge on 28
October 1981. You were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and overall
service. The Board concluded that those factors were
insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge,
‘given the nature and severity of your offenses.
The Board noted that applicable regulations require the
assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when a Sailor receives a
punitive discharge. Since the RE-4 reenlistment code was
properly assigned in your case and as you have been treated no
differently than others in similar situations, there is no basis
for changing your reenlistment code.
As you have not demonstrated that you should have been promoted
at any time following your 24 November 1979 special court-
martial, when you were reduced to E-1, there is no basis for
correcting your record to show that you were discharged from the
Navy in a rank other than E-1.
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 | CY2009 | 02089-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2009. The bad conduct discharge was issued on 22 March 1982. In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed al] potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable Service in the Army and your contention in effect, that the Navy did not grant you the proper waiver for the RE-3 reenlistment code and consequently your enlistment in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04952-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 1980 you were convicted by a special court martial for unauthorized absence from 16 June to 13 November 1979, a period of 150 days; failure to go to your appointed place of duty and missing ship's movement. were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00498-08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No: 00498-08 27 August 2008 ‘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 27 August 2008. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10821-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 September 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 | CY2012 | 03536-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 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 | 06614-08
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 that 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 | 10599-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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 | CY2008 | 04172-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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 | 10573-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 2009. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and the passage of time. 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 | 05804-08
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. On 1 February 1979, you were warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action...