DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 02585-09
11 March 2010
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 10 March 2010. 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 and began a period of active duty on
10 September 2001, at age 21. On 20 March 2002, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for committing adultery and bigamy.
On 21 March 2002, administrative separation action was initiated
by reason of misconduct. You waived your rights to consult
counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an
administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer
forwarded his recommendation that you be discharged under other
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. The discharge
authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of
Misconduct. On 5 April 2002, you were so discharged. At that
time you were assigned an appropriate RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, conduct,
and overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found
that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the
reenlistment code or characterization of your discharge, given
your record of NUP for serious misconduct. In this regard, an
RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is
discharged prior to the expiration of his term of active
obligated service for misconduct and is not recommended for
retention. The Board also noted that you waived the right to an
ADB, your best opportunity for retention or a better
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,
Wey,
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13341-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the characterization of your discharge, or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02976-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application-on 5 January 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materiai submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequentiy, 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 | 09392-09
“A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 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 | CY2010 | 01675-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. The Board -also noted that you ‘were fortunate to receive a general discharge, because when individuals are separated for misconduct ghey normally receive an other than honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03152-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01204-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09930-09
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 6 July 1973, you received NUP for being UA for a period of 15 days. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted two to one in favor of an other than honorable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01195-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 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 | 10836-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2010. The discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason 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 | CY2009 | 03764-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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. On 6 January 2004, the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct.