DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 2645-10
26 January 2011
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 19 January 2011. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 enlisted in the Navy on 27 July 1999 at age 19. You served
for nearly a year without disciplinary incident, but on 22 June
2000, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for assault,
insubordination, absence from your appointed place of duty, two
specifications of failure to obey a lawful order, misbehavior as
a sentinel, and using provoking speech or gestures. The
punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty, reduction to
paygrade E-4, and a $402 forfeiture of pay. A year later, on 30
July 2001, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a
223 day period of unauthorized absence (UA). You were sentenced
to confinement for 29 days and a $695 forfeiture of pay. On 15
November 2001 you were reduced to paygrade E-1, presumably due to
your continued misconduct.
It appears that in August 2004 you were convicted by special
court-martial (SPCM) of unspecified offenses and sentenced to
a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Subsequently, the BCD was
approved at all levels of review, and on 31 August 2004, while
serving in paygrade E-1, you were issued a BCD. At that time you
were assigned 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, post service conduct, and desire to change your
reenlistment code. Nevertheless, these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your misconduct which resulted in
NIP, SCM, and SPEM. Finally, an RE-4 reenlistment code is not
ionly authorized by regulatory guidelines, but mandatorily
assigned to Sailors who are separated with a BCD. Accordingly,
your application has been denied.
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 PF
Executive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11629-10
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. On 30 March 1972 you were convicted by general court-martial (GCM) of a 160 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for seven months, a $525 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05744-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 February 2001. 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 and applicable statutes, regulations, thereof, your naval record, and policies. immediate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03450-01
You were sentenced On 27 July 1983 you were again convicted by paygrade E-2, and a $1,500 The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, of UA do not justify a BCD. factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your frequent and lengthy periods of UA, which resulted in three court-martial Given the circumstances of your case, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11984-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 10 August 2011. The sentence imposed wag confinement for 45 days, a forfeiture of pay and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). 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 | 05064-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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. ‘Consequently, when gpplying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06556-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . With regard to your paygrade on your DD Form 214 at the time of your discharge, because your request is for an administrative correction which does not require action by this Board, you may submit a request to the Department of the Navy, Navy Personnel Command (BUPERS), Code Pers-312, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, Tennessee 38055-3120. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06684-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2001. 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. A year later, on 12 April 1968, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 62 days and breaking...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03764-01
Your allegations of error and 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& appointed place of duty On 25 October 1983 vou received was On 15 November 1983 the BCD was to be executed, Subsequently, the suspension of the forfeitures and BCD were vacated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden‘is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10506-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval’ Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the characterization of your discharge, given your record...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00365-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. application on 2 November 2011. 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.