DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 04436-10
4 February 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 2 February 2011. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed tn 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 20 March 1984. On 21 February 1986,
you pled guilty in the County of San Diego, Superior Court,
California, for causing a fire in an inhabited structure causing
great bodily injury. Your sentence included 90 days confinement.
On 25 February 1986, administrative discharge action was
initiated by reason of misconduct (commission of a serious
offense). On 17 April 1986, your case was heard by an
administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero
in favor of an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to
misconduct (commission of a serious offense). On 21 May 1986,
your commanding officer concurred with the ADB’s finding and
recommended that you be discharged under OTH conditions by reason
of misconduct. On 10 July 1986, you received the OTH due to
misconduct (commission of a serious offense). 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of your misconduct that resulted in a civilian criminal
conviction and confinement. 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 net ‘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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10771-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 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 | 02164-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 December 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. You were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07072-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction’ of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2009. 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 7 October 1986, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6699 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11530-10
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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04198-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02245-11
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 did-not consider whether to upgrade your discharge or change the reason for separation because you have not exhausted your administrative remedy of applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00148-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 28 September 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 14 August 1989, the ADB found that you committed misconduct and recommended that you be separated with an OTH discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04581-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 February 2009. 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 that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your service due to the seriousness of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12453-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 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...