Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02979-09
Original file (02979-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
4 WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TAL
Docket No: 2979-09
19 January 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 5 January 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

15 June 1995 at age 19. On 4 June 1995, you were advised that
you were being retained in the Navy despite your fraudulent
‘anduction as evidenced by your failure to disclose required basic
enlistment eligibility information, a parking violation in
December 1993, in San Antonio, Texas and writing a worthless
check. At that time you were counseled and warned concerning the
consequences of further misconduct. On 28 October 1996, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for dereliction in the
performance of duties and sleeping on post. On 24 February 1997,
you received NUP for violating a lawful general regulation.

Based on the information currently contained in your record it
appears that you were subsequently involuntarily processed for
administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to a
pattern of misconduct. In connection with this processing, you
would have acknowledged the separation action and the discharge
authority would have approved a recommendation for separation.
The record clearly shows that on 2 May 1997, you were discharged
with an other than honorable discharge. At that time, you were
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing your
reenlistment code given the seriousness of your misconduct. The
Board noted you were counseled and warned concerning the
consequences of further misconduct before your two NJP’s.
Finally, an RE-4 reenlistment code must be assigned to all
Sailors discharged due to misconduct. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13131-09

    Original file (13131-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 2010. After your first NUP, you were notified of pending administrative separation action 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 | CY2011 | 02294-11

    Original file (02294-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 November 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11704-09

    Original file (11704-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your first NUP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10775-09

    Original file (10775-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 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 | 01536-10

    Original file (01536-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 2010. Shortly thereafter, you were notified of administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, and waived your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08811-10

    Original file (08811-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 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. After waiving your procedural right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended discharge...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10141-09

    Original file (10141-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 June 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 12 February 2007, you were notified of pending administrative discharge processing under honorable conditions due to misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7712 13

    Original file (NR7712 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 August 2014. 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 | 12280-09

    Original file (12280-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Code, section 1552, A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. On 26 June 2007 you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02177-09

    Original file (02177-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 December 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, togethér with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 28 August 1974, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of unsuitability.