DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
REC
Docket No: 06445-09
13 May 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 11 May 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
3 July 1980, at age 17. Between 31 July 1981 and 5 August 1982,
you received six nonjudicial punishments (NJP's). You committed
the following offenses: disrespect toward a petty officer, two
instances of failure to obey a lawful order, wrongfully
introducing and having possession of alcoholic beverages in a
government vehicle, dereliction of duty, possession and use of
lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), disobeying a lawful general
order and being absent from your appointed place of duty. On
30 August 1982, administrative separation action was initiated by
reason of misconduct. You waived your rights to consult counsel,
submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative
discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer forwarded his
recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct. The discharge authority
directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of
misconduct. On 7 September 1982, you were so discharged. 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 the
characterization of your discharge, given your record of six
NJP's for misconduct. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code
is required when an individual is discharged prior to the
expiration of his term of active obligated service for misconduct
and is not recommended for retention. The Board also noted that
you waived the 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 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,
ROBERT ies
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01935-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 2010. On 13 October 1983, you received your third NJP for an additional UA period. On 27 January 1984, you received the OTH discharge due to misconduct (drug abuse).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00465-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 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 24 September 1984, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05955-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 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 | CY2009 | 09931-09
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. 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 | 02277-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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 | CY2009 | 11635-09
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. On 7 May 1984, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct. On 10 July 1984, your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an under other than honorable discharge due to misconduct for drug abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05553-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 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 | CY2013 | NR303 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2013. 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. Administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10553-09
BR three-member panel of the Board» for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive sessiom, -considered your application on 8 July 2010. The discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct for drug abuse. 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 | 00904 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2012. On 31 January 1983, you were again UA for 20 days with no disciplinary action taken by your chain of command. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.