DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMS
Docket No: 1807-09
8 May 2009
This is in reference to 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 6 May 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.
On 18 August 1980, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18 and
served without incident until 11 January 1983, when you failed
to return from liberty and were in an unauthorized absence (UA)
status for about two hours. On 31 January 1983, you failed to
return from liberty again and were in a UA status for three
hours. On 30 April 1983, you began a UA that ended on
2 May 1983, a period of about two days. On 31 May 1983, you
began a UA that ended on 2 August 1983, a period of about 63
days. On 19 August 1983, you were convicted by a summary
court-martial for the 63 day period of UA and missing the
movement of your ship. On 13 October 1983, you had nonjudicial
punishment for a day of UA that occurred during the period
18 to 19 September 1983. On 13 October 1983, you received a
derogatory performance evaluation. On 2 August 1984, you
missed the sailing of your ship from Subic Bay to Hong Kong. -
On 5 October 1984, a service record entry was made which stated
that your commanding officer did not recommend you for
reenlistment... On 19 October 1984, you received another
derogatory performance evaluation and you were honorably
released from active duty due to the expiration of enlistment
and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. On 20 October 1986,
you were honorably discharged due to the expiration of
obligated service.
Regulations direct assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to
members who are not recommended for retention. Given your
repetitive misconduct, non-recommendation for retention, and
derogatory performance evaluations, and since you have been
treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board
could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the
RE-4 reenlistment code. The Board noted that you were
fortunate to have received an honorable characterization of
service since your misconduct met the requirements for an
involuntary administrative separation with an other than
honorable characterization of service. 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,
Odes
Executive D3;
Copy to:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Nd
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02466-06
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 30 September 1981 after four years of prior honorable service. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00260-09
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. On 23 April 1986, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of 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 | CY2001 | 05187-99
opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) dated 20 December copies of which are attached. to this Board, the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) at HQMC has removed this comment from your last The Board first considered your contentions of error concerning the NJP of 10 January 1996, specifically, that although the service record entry of 8 ,January 1996 shows that the advice 5 M.J. 238 (CMA 1977) was required by United States v. Booker, given, it does not state that this advice...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05034-06
OS A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 November 2006. 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. 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 | CY2012 | 00904 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2012. On 31 January 1983, you were again UA for 20 days with no disciplinary action taken by your chain of command. 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 | CY2012 | 00286-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. On 9 May 1986, you received NUP for being UA for one day.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05514-07
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 27 January 1989, you enlisted in the Na~ at age 18. On 30 October 1992, you began another UA and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08222-98
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. was forfeitures totalling $50 and restriction for 30 days. Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the frequency of your misconduct which resulted in four a court-martial conviction and the seriousness of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03833-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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 | CY2009 | 12874-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 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...