DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX REC
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100 Docket No: 10654-10
8 August 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 3 August 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 coneideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You reenlisted in the Navy on 22 December 1984, after more than
15 years of honorable service. However, during your third
enlistment, on 2 April 1986, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NTP) for being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for two
days, and missing your ship's movement. On 12 June 1987, you
received NUP for wrongful use of cocaine. You were advised that
your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative
separation due to misconduct. You requested to have your case
heard by an administrative Gischarge board (ADB). On 11 August
1987, an ADB was conducted and recommended that you receive a
general discharge due to alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.
On 17 August 1987, you commenced a period of UA which lasted 60
days. On 23 September 1987, your commanding officer agreed with
the ADB and forwarded his recommendation that you receive a
general discharge. However, the separation authority recommended
that the request for discharge be resubmitted once you returned
from a period of UA. On 17 November 1987, you were convicted by
a special court-martial (SPCM) of being UA for 60 days. You were
sentenced to a reduction in pay grade and confinement at hard
labor for 60 days. Your misconduct continued and on 29 January
1988, you received NUP for another period of UA which lasted 22
days. On 25 August 1988, you were detained in the hands of
civilian authorities in the county of San Diego, California, for
acts of sexual molestation committed against your daughter,
fraud, forgery, and petty theft. You were sentenced to 11 years
and six months in prison, and a fine of $2,100. On 12 June 1989,
you were again informed that you were being administratively
discharged by reason of misconduct (conviction by a civil court).
On 22 June 1989, your commanding officer recommended that you be
discharged under other than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason
of your misconduct (civil conviction). On 7 duly 1989, the
discharge authority directed the OTH discharge. On 14 duly 1989,
you received the OTH due to misconduct (convicted by a civil
court). 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
record of prior honorable service. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct
that resulted in two NUP’s, conviction by a SPCM, and 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 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 | CY2013 | NR7266 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2014. 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 January 1989, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge ‘action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05741-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2008. On 15 January 1990, you began a UA that ended on 3 February 1990, a period of about 19 days. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10651-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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. 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 | CY2011 | 00060-11
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. 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 | CY2007 | 03554-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 January 2008. 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 23 June 1989, the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02574-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Recotds, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2010. In March 1988 a second Navy Mental Health evaluation was conducted and you were diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity syndrome, tinea pedis, and alcohol dependence, and directed to complete your confinement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04339-12
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2013. Additionaily, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 06979-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10658-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...