DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 10775-0939
9 July 2010
Dear aiaiganenesy.
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
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 your
application on 8 July 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. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred
with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
You reenlisted in the Navy on 10 August 1996, at age 20. On
27 March 1997, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
drink alcohol under age. On 16 July 2002, you were convicted by
the Clay County Court, in Green Cove Springs, Florida for
domestic batter and sentenced a fine of $201, and 6 months
probation. On 3 October 2002, you received NUP for two incidents
of wrongfully using provoking words toward a patient and a senior
petty officer, using indecent language and communicating a threat
on two occasions. On 19 November 2002, you were notified that
administrative discharge procedures were initiated and that you
would receive a reenlistment code of RE-4 for your pattern of
misconduct upon your separation. On 3 December 2002, the
discharge authority directed a general discharge by reason of
misconduct. You were so discharged on 13 December 2002.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity. However, the Board found that these
factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your RE-4
reenlistment code or character of service, given your record of
one two NUP's for misconduct. The Board also noted that you were
fortunate to receive a general discharge since a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is often directed when an
individual is found to have committed misconduct. 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,
W. DEAN ET
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01736-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . Documentary ; material considered by thé 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06271-09
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 31 July 2004 you received NJP for assaulted consummated by battery and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to paygrade E-2, and a $1,412 forfeiture of pay. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10284-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and desire...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02976-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application-on 5 January 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materiai submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequentiy, 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 | 09392-09
“A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 02585-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 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 | 00453-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 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 | CY2009 | 10836-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2010. The discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason 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 | 10141-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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. On 12 February 2007, you were notified of pending administrative discharge processing under honorable conditions due to misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08762-08
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 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 material error or injustice.