DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX CRS
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No: 475-10
19 April 2011
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 March 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
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 initially enlisted in the Navy on 6
February 1989. On 14 December 2006 you were diagnosed with
alcohol dependency, and on 12 January 2007 you received
nonjudicial punishment for drunk driving. The punishment for
that offense consisted of forfeitures of $1438.00 per month for
two months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, and reduction
to HTS (E-5).
On 5 March 2007 an administrative discharge board recommended
that you be separated from the Navy by reason of
misconduct /commission of a serious offense, with a general
discharge. After review by the discharge authority, the
recommendation for separation was approved and on 16 July 2007
you were separated with a general discharge.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your family problems,
good post service conduct, and overall record of service. The
Board concluded that those factors were insufficient to warrant
your reinstatement in the Navy. In addition, as you have not
established that your reduction to pay grade E-5 was erroneous or
unjust, the Board was not persuaded that it would be in the
interest of justice to correct your record to show that you were
discharged in grade of E-6 vice E-5. 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,
ron
W. DEAN PFE
Executive
or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00895-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 October 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure and commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04130-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 26 October 2011. The Board concluded that sufficient evidence existed to support the commanding office's decision to impose NIP. 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 | 00307-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2011. On 23 March 2010, you received a general characterization of service discharge while serving in pay grade E-2 due to misconduct (COSO), and were 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06293-06
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 enlisted in the Navy on 31 August 2004 at age 19 and served without disciplinary incident until 21...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06133-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, 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 | CY2011 | 00733-11
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, to include the Naval Discharge Review Board decisional document, and application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your prior satisfactory service, post service conduct, and desire to upgrade your discharge. Consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11304-10
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03627-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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 | CY2011 | 02604-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 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 | CY2010 | 05799-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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. On 16 November 1983, the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct (commission of a serious offense).