DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SON
Docket No: 09771-0939
28 June 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 22 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 and began a period of active duty on
29 September 2005. The Board found that you were convicted by
summary court-martial (SCM) of wrongfully gambling, and
solicitation. You also received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for
disobedience (under age drinking). On 3 July 2009, you received
a general discharge due to misconduct by reason of a pattern of
misconduct. At that time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment
code, Your commanding officer stated, in part, that you
demonstrated a continued inability to conform to Navy standards.
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 RE-4 reenlistment code.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant a change of your RE-4 reenlistment given
your SCM conviction and NUP. In this regard, you were assigned
the appropriate reenlistment code based on your circumstances.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
The Board did not consider whether to upgrade your discharge or
change the reason for separation because you have not exhausted
your administrative remedy by applying to the Naval Discharge
Review Board (NDRB). You may apply to NDRB by submitting the
attached DD Form 293.
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,
Executive Dil
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08426-09
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. 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 | CY2010 | 01243-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. 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 | CY2009 | 09930-09
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 6 July 1973, you received NUP for being UA for a period of 15 days. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted two to one in favor of an other than honorable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01728-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 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, You’ enlisted in the Navy on 21 November 1968 at age 19. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
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 | 07240-09
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 | CY2009 | 13314-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. 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 | 07528-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the reenlistment code or characterization of your discharge,...
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 | CY2014 | NR2045 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction.of Naval Records, sitting in executive. Your ‘record “further reflects that on 19 October 2010, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) changed your characterization of service to “honorable” and your narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” © 000 er beh a The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to change your RE-4 reenlistment...