Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10151-09
Original file (10151-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TAL
Docket No: 10151-09
6 July 2010

 

Dear AM

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 30 June 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 19 September 1985 after more than
six years of prior honorable service. On 13 July 1987, you were
convicted in civil court of indecent acts with a minor. You were
sentenced to 12 months confinement; served 30 days in jail and
underwent counseling. You remained on active duty until the end
of your enlistment. On 18 October 1988, you were honorably
discharged from active duty and 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 a change in your
reenlistment code given the seriousness of your misconduct that
resulted in a civil conviction and a non-recommendation for
reenlistment which was sufficient to support the assignment of an
RE-4 reenlistment code. 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 officiai naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03279-09

    Original file (03279-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged due to misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02306-09

    Original file (02306-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Subsequently, the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction, and on 7 March 2006, you were so discharged and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12406-09

    Original file (12406-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In this regard, you were assigned the appropriate reenlistment code based on your circumstances.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10530-09

    Original file (10530-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 2010. On 26 March 2009, you received a general discharge due to alcohol rehabilitation failure, and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 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 | CY2010 | 00731-10

    Original file (00731-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 that 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 | 03056-09

    Original file (03056-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted four to zero in favor of an other than honorable discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09319-09

    Original file (09319-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. While UA, you were convicted in civil court for assault and robbery. 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 | 10333-09

    Original file (10333-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 July 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. Finally, an RE-4 reenlistment code must be assigned to all Sailors discharged due to misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2045 14

    Original file (NR2045 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10430-09

    Original file (10430-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 June 2010. On 19 December 1984, you received an OTH discharge due. 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.