DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 11285-10.
4 Rugust 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 August 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 1 May 2002 at age 26 and immediately
began a period of active duty. You served for nearly three years
without disciplinary incident, however, on 6 April 2005, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NIP) for disobedience, failure
to obey a lawful order, making a false official statement, and
two specifications of failure to pay just debts. Asa result,
you were recommended for an administrative separation.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation
by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
After waiving your procedural rights to consult with legal
counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge
board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended separation under
‘honorable conditions by. reason of misconduct due to commission of
a serious offense as evidenced by the NUP, indebtedness, failure
to pay traffic fines which resulted in arrest warrants, and
counselling on numerous occasions. The discharge authority
approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer
to issue you a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to
commission of a serious offense, and on 4 May 2005, you were so
discharged. At that time you were not recommended for
reenlistment and 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 period of satisfactory service and desire to change your
reenlistment code. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant a change of your
reenlistment code because of the seriousness of your misconduct.
Finally, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself, but
waived your procedural right to present your case to an ADB.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
It igs 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 tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11372-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. On 13 April 2005, your case was forwarded and the discharge authority concurred with the ADB’s finding and recommendation, and directed that you be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02473-11
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. The Board did not consider whether to upgrade your discharge or change the reason for separation because you did not request such action, and you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04436-10
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 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). ‘Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00396-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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. After waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB}, on 13...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02393-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05932-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The Board believed you were fortunate to receive a general discharge, since Sailors who are administratively separated for misconduct such as yours normally receive an other than...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06487-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06165-10
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, 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 | CY2009 | 13247-09
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 31 August 2005, 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 | CY2006 | 06218-06
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulation 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 injusticeThe Board found that YOU reenlisted in the Navy on 15 November 2002 after more than three years of...