. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
: 2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 1774-09
11 January 2010
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.6 January 2010, 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 12 December 1989 at age 17 and began
a period of active duty on 23 January 1990. You served for
nearly two years without disciplinary incident, but your record
reflects that during the period from 9 to 16 November 1990 you
were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for seven days.
Although the record reflects that disciplinary action was pending
for this misconduct, it does not appear that any action was
taken.
Your record also reflects two other periods of UA and one
specification of missing the movement of your ship. However,
both of these entries were marked as “in error” and did not
require disciplinary action... In other words, you were found to
have been on board in either a duty or working status.
On 30 October 1992, within three months of the completion of your.
required active service and while you were serving in paygrade
E-3, you were honorably released from active duty and transferred
to the Navy Reserve. You were not recommended for retention or
reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. On 22
January 1998, at the expiration of your enlistment, you were
honorably discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, desire to change your reenlistment code, and removal
of documentation referring to periods of UA. It also considered
the supporting documentation provided with your application.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code because
the nonrecommendation for reenlistment was sufficient to support
the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code, which is authorized
by regulatory guidance. Finally, the entries regarding UA are
for administrative purposes only and has no impact on your time
in service. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03179-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 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. You served without disciplinary infraction until 7 May 1990, when you began a three day period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01683-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. However, while waiting to be separated from naval service, you went UA and continued in a UA status until you were discharged in absentia on 12 July 1991, with an OTH discharge and an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reenlistment code due to a pattern of misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10212-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 September 2003. 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. Further, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required wher Nevertheless, the Board concluded these On 29 April 1992 your On 4 June 1992 the It further...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12131-09
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. The discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09323-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. You were recommended for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to your misconduct. 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 | 04238-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2010. On 10 May 1988, you received NIP for UA from you appointed place of duty. 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 | 08807-09
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. Finally, such a code is authorized by regulatory guidance and normally assigned to Sailors who are separated due to the convenience of the government and not recommended for reenlistment due to failure to meet physical standards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
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 | CY2009 | 09320-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 10742-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2010. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this period of UA. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2010.