DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100
REC
Docket No: 07198-10
7 Aoyvil 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 6 April 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy and began active duty on 12 March 1984,
at age 17. Between 24 January and 12 September 1985, you
received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP‘'s) and committed the
following offenses: disobeying a lawful order, wrongfully and
falsely altering a military identification card with intent to
deceive, signed an official +dentification card application with
the incorrect date of birth, and failure to go to your appointed
place of duty. On 19 February 1986, you were convicted by a
summary court-martial (SCM) of seven incidents of being in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status, and missing the movement of
your ship. You were sentenced to a forfeiture of $300, and
confinement at hard labor for 30 days. On 19 February 1986,
administrative separation action was initiated by reason of
misconduct. You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a
statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge
board (ADB). Your commanding officer forwarded his
recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable
conditions (OTH) by reason of misconduct (frequent involvement) .
On 10 March 1986, the discharge authority directed an OTH
discharge by reason of misconduct (frequent involvement). On
12 March 1986, you were so discharged. At that time you were
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, conduct,
and overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found
that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the
characterization of. your discharge, given your record of three
NJP’s and conviction by one SCM for misconduct. You are advised
that an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is
discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00082-11
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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05254-10
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 Or your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policiés: After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07317-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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 applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03556 12
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. Therefore, in May 1981, you received an ADB and it voted to separate you with an OTH discharge due to misconduct. 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 | 00962-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 2 November 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. 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 | CY2012 | 00286-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. On 9 May 1986, you received NUP for being UA for one day.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4068-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . _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 | 03773-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2011. On 9 November 1990 you were so discharged. 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 | 11257-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2011. 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 | 12208-10
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...