DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 00373-10
20 September 2010
pea:
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 14 September 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 entered active duty in the Navy on 20 September 1984, and
served without disciplinary incident until 26 June 1985, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a
lawful order. Shortly thereafter, you received the following
disciplinary actions: on 23 October 1985, you received NUP for
assault; on 30 December 1985, you received NJP for drunk and
disorderly conduct; on 2 July 1986, you received another NUP for
drunk and disorderly conduct; on 20 February 1987, you received
NIP for an unauthorized absence (UA); and on 4 January 1987, you
were convicted at a summary court-martial of three specifications
of UA, and resisting arrest. Therefore, you were recommended for
separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to a
pattern of misconduct. You waived your rights to consult with
counsel and request an administrative discharge board (ADB). The
separation authority approved the recommendation and on 24
February 1987, you were separated with an OTH discharge and an
RE-4' reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the frequency of your misconduct. Additionally, the
Board found that you waived your procedural right to an ADB, your
best opportunity for retention or a better characterization of
service. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
pon request.
¢" 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,
\Noak i
W. DEAN PF
Executive D or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04685-09
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. On 19 December 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a four day period of unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit and dereliction of duty.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06756-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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 | CY2010 | 05757-10
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, the Board also noted on 5 June 1987 you were offered the right to request in-patient alcohol rehabilitation treatment from the Veterans Administration Hospital nearest your home, but signed a waiver refusing treatment. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13077-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 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 24 April 1989 you received the OTH.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02832-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 February 2011. 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 | 04571-09
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 1991, you received NUP for drunk and disorderly conduct. 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 | CY2012 | 00923 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2779 14
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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to...
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 | 12582-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 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.