DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BIG
Docket No: 1121-11
31 October 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 26 October 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 26 April 1996. Your record
je incomplete, but it appears that you served without
disciplinary action until 14 November 2009, when you received
nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey a lawful order or
regulation. You were then administratively processed for
separation due to misconduct (commission of a serious offense
(COSO)). On 21 July 2010, the Navy Personnel Command directed
your separation due to misconduct (COSO) with a general
characterization of service, and assigned an RE-4 (not
recommended for retention) reentry code.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior
honorable service, including a tour in Iraq. However, the
Board concluded that you were correctly assigned an RE-4
reentry code due to your misconduct and non-recommendation for
retention. The Board noted that you were fortunate to receive
a general characterization of service,since an other than
honorable discharge is normally assigned when an individual is
found to have committed misconduct. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Since your discharge is less than 15 years old, you may
petition the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for a possible
upgrade. I have enclosed a copy of NDRB’s application form for
your convenience.
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,
LD oan :
W. DEAN PFETEF
Executive Di xr
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00307-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2011. On 23 March 2010, you received a general characterization of service discharge while serving in pay grade E-2 due to misconduct (COSO), and were assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reentry code. 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 | 10195-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 2011. Your commanding officer agreed with the ADB’s finding and recommendation, and on 4 March 2010, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service due to misconduct {COSO) , and assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reentry code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01393-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 November 2011. On 28 April 1992, you received an OTH characterization of service discharge due to misconduct (COSO), and were assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reentry code. 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 | 02314-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 2013. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 02355-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2013. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01828-11
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05159 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2013. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06923-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In order to have your social security number corrected on your DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), you need to contact the Naval Personnel Command (NPC) and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12250 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge due to your COSO: Furthermore, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09699-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2011. 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 injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...