DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 12640-09
24 August 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 24 August 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. The Board found that you had honorable
service in the Marine Corps from 16 December 1975 until 27
November 1981. You reenlisted on 28 November 1981. Your
record is incomplete, but it appears that you were notified
that your commanding officer was recommending you for
administrative separation with an other than honorable (OTH)
discharge due to misconduct (commission of a serious offense
(COSO)). You waived all of your procedural rights, including
your right to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 19
October 1984, you received an OTH discharge due to misconduct
(COSO), and were assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for.
retention) reenlistment code.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior
honorable service, and contention that you committed no
misconduct. The Board concluded that your discharge should not
be upgraded due to your misconduct. The Board noted that your
record includes evidence which contradicts your contention.
The Board found that you waived your right to an ADB, your best
opportunity for retention or a better characterization of
service. In view of the above, 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,
Lea |
W.” DEAN FP
Executive e
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00623-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10909-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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 | CY2010 | 10195-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 2011. Your commanding officer agreed with the ADB’s finding and recommendation, and on 4 March 2010, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service due to misconduct {COSO) , and assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reentry code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08760-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2009. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03552 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2013. 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 ADB voted to separate you with an OTH discharge due to misconduct (COSO).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12250 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge due to your COSO: Furthermore, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05159 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2013. 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 | NR6981 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application 29 July 2014. On 13 January 1988, you received an OTH characterization of service discharge due to misconduct (COSO), and were assigned an RE-4 (not. 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 | CY2011 | 01828-11
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2011. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 08411 11
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by showing that on 18 July 1986, he was issued an honorable characterization of service vice the other than honorable (OTH) discharge of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 18 July 1986, he was issued an honorable characterization of service vice the OTH...