DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 04424-09
19 April 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 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. 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
24 July 1987 at age 18. On 16 December 1987 and 20 January 1988,
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for larceny,
disobedience, 10 days of unauthorized absence, and destruction of
government property. Administrative separation action was
initiated to separate you by reason of misconduct due to
commission of a serious offense. You requested an administrative
discharge board (ADB). The ADB met on 17 February 1988 and found
that you had committed misconduct and recommended an other than
honorable (OTH) discharge. On 26 February 1988, your commanding
officer forwarded your case to the separation authority
concurring with the ADB that you be separated with an OTH. On
24 March 1988, you received the OTH 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, record of
service, character letters, and post-service accomplishments.
Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant changing your reenlistment code because of
your two NUJP’s for serious offenses. 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,
\y bond
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09083-10
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 discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct (commission of a serious offense). In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00060-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10516-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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 | CY2009 | 12582-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 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 | CY2008 | 06046-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10524-09
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 9 September 1987, you were notified that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct (commission of a serious offense). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01271-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2010. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which met and found that you had ‘committed misconduct (commission of a serious offense), but recommended that you be retained. 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 | 08424-09
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. 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 | 09829-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 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 | CY2010 | 01650-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 2010. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which met and found that you had committed misconduct (commission of a serious offense), but recommended that you receive a general discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...