DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 1960-09
14 December 2009
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 2 December 2009. Your allegations of error and
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 30 May 2000. on
10 May 2004 you were frocked to AM2 (B-5). On 11 June 2004 you
received nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence and
failure to obey a lawful order. The punishment consisted of
restriction and extra duty for 45 days and reduction in pay
grade, which was suspended. In addition, the frocking to AM2 was
revoked. On 24 September 2004 you received nonjudicial
punishment for failure to Obey a lawful order. The punishment
consisted of reduction in pay grade from AMSN (E-3) to AMSA (E-
2), forfeiture of $668 per month for two months, and restriction
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. When informed of this
recommendation, you waived the right to consult with counsel and
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your family problems and
overall record, and the contention that you should have been
allowed to have a court-martial. The Board concluded that those
factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge or changing its basis.
Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reentry
code when a Sailor is discharged by reason of misconduct. 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 your reentry code.
The Board found no merit in your request to restore your former
frocked rate of AM2. It concluded that your commanding officer
acted reasonably in your case, and that he was in the best
position to resolve the factual issues and to impose appropriate
punishment. There is no credible evidence that you did not
commit the charged offenses.
In view of the foregoing, 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,
lo ‘\
W. DEAN PF
' Executive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10699-10
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 thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reentry 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 | CY2010 | 00847-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TAL Docket No: 847-10 29 October 2010 Ey 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 27 October 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07611-03
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 est ablishhe exploit of probablernaterial erroror injusticeYou enlisted in the Navy on 29 September 2000 at age 21 and served without disciplinary incident until 26...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800469
Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 01262-04
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 p7rohahl material error or injus i~e.The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 31 April 1997 at age 19. You served...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06323-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The reporting senior stated, in part, as follows: (Member) requires direct supervision to get satisfactory results.... he takes no ownership of any actions and constantly makes excuses for his...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600242
I have been out for a year now, and I am Respectfully Requesting that my record be reviewed for a change in my service record. Commanding Officer’s comments: “OSSR V_(Applicant) has been in the Navy for 2 years and 7 months. After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct, which precipitated the discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08618-06
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. On 16 March and again on 18 April 2004 you received NJP for dereliction of duty and two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order. 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 | CY2003 | 05149-03
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 14 November 1980 after three years of prior honorable service. On that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01402-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 November 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, .