DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 0O7006-09
27 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 26 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
4 April 2005, at age 19. Between 21 June and 17 August 2006, you
received four nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s). You committed the
following offenses: eight instances of being in an unauthorized
absence (UA) status, two instances of failing to go to your
appointed place of duty, two instances of failure to obey a
lawful order, and insubordinate conduct. On 23 August 2006,
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 29 August 2006, 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, conduct,
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 four
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 ali 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 | CY2009 | 12131-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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. The discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01195-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 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. The discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12127-09
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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09023-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on @ 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. In this regard, you were assigned the appropriate reenlistment code based on your circumstances.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12133-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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. 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 | 06445-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 May 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. The discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00546-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 2010. However, the SARP at Corpus Christi Hospital and your command Drug and Alcohol Program Assistant (DAPA) Ggtermined that you were an alcohol rehabilitation failure and it was recommended that you be separated for not complying with the Peonmended treatment. On 27 February 2008, your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10537-09
On & October 2006, administrative separation action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an other than honorable discharge. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the reenlistment code or characterization of your discharge, given your record of one NUP and conviction by one SCM. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13131-09
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 | CY2009 | 08418-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which recommended three to zero an other than honorable discharge.