DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 10537-09
9 July 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
5 c
A three-member panel of the Board for Corr rection of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered yo
application on 8 July 2010. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and proc Scures Sebi cease to the proceedings of this
Board. Docum dered by the Board consisted of
your application, “together with material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record, and licable statutes, regulations,
and policies.
-@
B
cr
ot
5
hit
=
oO
at
m
H
b-
0
et
-Q
Oo
5
om mM
tg He 5
BaP
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
25 October 2005, at age 19. On 12 July 2006, ves received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for two instances of making a false
official statement, and disorderly conduct by ” portray in. the
mezzanine. On 8 September 2006, you were convicted at a summary
court-martial (SCM) for conspiracy to commit larceny and seven
instances of stealing property from a government employee. You
were sentenced to forfeitures of $882, reduction in pay grade,
and confinement at hard labor for one month. 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. Your commanding officer concurred with the ADB’s
recommendation, and 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 9 November 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
reenlistment code or characterization of your discharge, given
your record of one NUP and conviction by one SCM. 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. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04219-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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 | CY2009 | 10658-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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. 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 | 03608-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 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. At that time you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03358-09
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. You were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | 02486-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 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 | 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 | 08496-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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 ali material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02608-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2010. On 12 September 1991, you were so discharged. 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 | 07927-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2011. You were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2013 | NR8945 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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...