DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON BC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 07247-09
27 May 2010
This is in reference to your client’s application for correction
of his 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 his application
on 27 May 2010. His 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 his
application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, his 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.
The Board found he enlisted in the Marine Corps on 11 January
1990, and served without disciplinary incident until 28 June
1990, when he received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for sleeping
on post. Shortly thereafter, he received the following NUP’s: on
24 July 1990, for an unauthorized absence; and on 4 February
1992, for larceny. ‘On 10 February 1992, he was evaluated by the
naval medical center for alcohol and/or substance dependency. He
was also given a page 13 counseling statement warning him that
any further misconduct would result in administrative separation.
On 28 August 1992, he received another NUP for larceny. He was
recommended for separation due to his pattern of misconduct. He
waived all of his procedural rights, to include his right to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). The separation authority
approved the recommendation for an other than honorable (OTH)
discharge. Therefore, on 16 October 1992, he was separated with
an OTH discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of his entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as his
youth and the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
_these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the
characterization of his discharge due to his misconduct.
Furthermore, the Board found he waived his right to an ADB, his
best opportunity for retention or a better characterization of
service. Finally, there is no provision of Law or in regulations
that allow for recharacterization of service due solely to the
passage of time. Accordingly, his 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 his case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. He is 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,
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12263-08
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 were advised that you were being administratively separated with .an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct and you waived your procedural right to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12050 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 2012. 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 reentry code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07257-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. 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 | NR2510-13
A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 2014. You were "80 discharged .On 29 October 1992. , Ce The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially’ mitigating factors, such as your record of service, post service accomplishments, character letters, and desire to upgrade your discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00142-09
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02181-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 2012. 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 | CY2012 | 00395-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 2012. On 19 October 1992, you received the OTH discharge for misconduct (commission of a serious offense). 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 | CY1999 | 06756-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2010. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8155 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12568-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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...