DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5700
BAN
Docket No: 02915-09
12 April 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 7 April 2010. Your allegations of error and
injustice were rev ewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and prczedures 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 navai 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 2 August 1985, for a three year
contract, and served without disciplinary incident. You were
involuntarily released three months early at the convenience of
the government. Therefore, on 13 May 1988, you were separated
with an honorable discharge and an RE-1 reenlistment code.
In an advisory opinion, (enclosure (1)), by the Naval Personnel _
Command (NPC) dated 14 May 2009, it was stated that “There is no
regulation or circumstances allowing for the active time served
count as a full 3 years.” Your DD Form 214 states that you
served two years, nine months and twelve days. In addition, you
initialed the document stating that you believed it to be correct
at the time of its issuance. Therefore, there is nothing to
correct in your record to show that you served three years on
active duty.
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. DD Form 214.
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,
wap
Executive or
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01230-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 2010. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your character of service, given your record of one conviction by SCM for 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 | CY2012 | 11838 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 December 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 20 April 2011, your commanding officer forwarded his recommendation that you be discharged with a general characterization of service by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11096-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 2010. You were notified that you were going to be administratively separated due to misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. 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 | CY2012 | 00459 12
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 requested to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). The Board did not consider whether your discharge should be upgraded due to the fact that since it is less than 15 years old, you must first apply to the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02565-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 2010. Since your discharge is less than 15 years old, you may apply to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for a possible upgrade. 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 | 04755-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2010. Nevertheless, these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your misconduct and your lengthy periods of UA from the Marine Corps which resulted in three NJPs and a SPCM. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the’ applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04771-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2010. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the passage of time, your desire to be reinstated to paygrade S2c, and the supporting documentation provided with your application. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04532-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 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 | 01423-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 October 2010. 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 | CY1999 | 06774-09
A three~member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. 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 error...