DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 2683-09
7 December 2009
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 2 December 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 ail 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 25 July 2001, and served without
disciplinary incident. However, you were recommended for
separation due to a commission of a serious offense.* You waived
all of your procedural rights, to include your right to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). The separation authority
approved the request and on 24 March 2006, you were separated
with a general discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment code.
* Pursuant to the Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) 1910-
142, Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Commission of A Serious
Offense, a commission of a serious offense does not require
adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings; however, an
offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence
{e.g., Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigation,
etc.).
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant a change to your separation code and
the reason for your discharge based on your serious misconduct.
Further, your commanding officer was within his authority to
separate you based on the NCIS investigation and your admission
that you were the “look-out” for the principal actor who
perpetrated a crime against other Sailors within the bachelor
enlisted quarters. Furthermore, the Board found you waived your
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
wili 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,
Lees
W. DEAN P
Executive Ditéctor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01920-01
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant existence of probable material error or injustice. - Form 149, Block (1) In the enclosure accompanying reference (a), (DD 9), the Subject makes the following contention: "I was separated from the U.S. Navy (Reserve) due to misconduct with a was found not guilty on all counts and was not allowed to plead my case before a court martial prior to separation." I (2) At the start of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00356-09
your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 7 After careful and conscientious congideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 13 June 2003, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06169-10
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. On 25 September 1990 an ADB recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | 06340-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 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. 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 | 07936-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2009. On 18 March 1988, you were notified of pending administrative separation processing for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for commission of a serious offense (having sex with a 15 year old female). On 13 April 1988, you received the OTH discharge for misconduct for commission of a serious offense, and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02049-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 2009. 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 | 10039-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 duly 2009. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire ‘ yecord, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 17 August 1989, you were notified that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation processing with an other...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02245-11
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 did-not consider whether to upgrade your discharge or change the reason for separation because you have not exhausted your administrative remedy of applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07515-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 February 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a An ADB recommended you be issued a After consulting with legal However, the discharge authority...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05434-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 2009. On 24 February 1994 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 10 March 1994 you were so discharged. Further, you were given a opportunity to defend your actions, but waived your procedural right to present your case to an ADB.