DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUIR
Docket No: 13231-10
28 April 2011
7
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 26 April 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 28 October 2008 at age 20 and served
without disciplinary incident until 7 May 2010, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for assault with intent to inflict
pain. The punishment imposed was a forfeiture of pay for two
months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, and a reduction
to paygrade E-1. Shortly thereafter, you were notified of
pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct
due to commission of a serious offense. At that time you waived
your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case
to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Subsequently, your
commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious
offense as evidenced by the NUP. On 12 May 2010 the discharge
authority approved this recommendation and directed your
commanding officer to issue you a general discharge by reason of
misconduct, and on 13 May 2010, you were so discharged and
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, period of satisfactory service, desire to upgrade
your discharge and change your narrative reason for separation
and reenlistment code. It also considered your statements
provided in support of your request. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge or to change your narrative
reason for separation or reenlistment code because of the
seriousness of your misconduct. Further, you were given an
Opportunity to defend yourself and perhaps receive a better
characterization of service, but waived your procedural right to
present your case to an ADB. Finally, Sailors separated by
reason of misconduct normally receive discharges under other than
honorable conditions, and as such the Board noted that you were
fortunate to receive a general discharge. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11285-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by the NUP, indebtedness, failure to pay traffic fines which resulted in...
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 | 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 | CY2012 | 12396 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 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 probable...
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 | 02327-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 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...
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 | 02730-11
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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. 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 | 00924-11
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. 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 | CY2010 | 01271-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2010. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which met and found that you had ‘committed misconduct (commission of a serious offense), but recommended that you be retained. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...