DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 6271-09
2 June 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 1 June 2010. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
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 on 30 May 2000 at age 18. You served
for nearly two years without disciplinary incident, but on 5 May
2002, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for cruelty and
maltreatment and assault consummated by battery. The punishment
imposed was restriction and extra duty for 10 days, reduction to
paygrade E-2, and a $1,300 forfeiture of pay. The forfeitures
and paygrade reduction were suspended for six months.
On 31 July 2004 you received NJP for assaulted consummated by
battery and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 45 days,
reduction to paygrade E-2, and a $1,412 forfeiture of pay.
On 29 May 2005, upon completion of your required active service,
you were honorably discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment
code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to change your reenlistment code so that
you may reenlist in another branch of the service. Nevertheless,
the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
a change in your reenlistment code because of the seriousness of
your misconduct which resulted in two NUPs. Further, the Board
concluded that your misconduct was sufficient to support the
assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code, which is authorized by
regulatory guidance. Accordingly, your application has been
denied.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08200-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2003. 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 March 2001, you received a third NJP for use and possession of marijuana and were awarded restriction and extra duty, forfeitures of pay,...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00002
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USNR Docket No. The reasons for my request in switching a other than honorable to an honorable are so I may re-enlist in the service. 951212: Vacate of reduction in rate to SA suspended at Commander’s NJP of 951011 vacated this date due to continued misconduct.951212: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault consummated by a battery on 951212.Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05284-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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. 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 | 03173-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 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 | CY2002 | 07508-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 May 2003. On 14 April 1983 you received NJP for breach of peace and assault and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to paygrade E-2, and a $250 forfeiture of pay. 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 | CY2001 | 01232-01
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 support of your contention, evidence. 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 | 03264-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records; sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2010. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, overall satisfactory service, and desire to change your reenlistment code so that you may reenlist since you are subject to active duty recall. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13231-10
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. Finally, Sailors separated by reason of misconduct normally receive discharges under other than honorable conditions, and as such the Board noted that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06323-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The reporting senior stated, in part, as follows: (Member) requires direct supervision to get satisfactory results.... he takes no ownership of any actions and constantly makes excuses for his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09602-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, 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 material error or injustice.