DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 1828-11
9 November 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.
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 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 and entered active duty on 17 April
1989. You received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions for
resisting apprehension, assault (three specifications),
unauthorized absence (two specifications), and failure to go to
your appointed place of duty. You were then notified that your
commanding officer was recommending you for administrative ,
separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization
of service discharge due to misconduct (commission of a serious
offense (COSO)}. You waived your procedural right to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 28 August 1990, you
received an OTH characterization of service discharge due to
misconduct (COSO), and were assigned an RE-4 (not recommended
for retention) reenlistment code.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, family
issues, and current desire to upgrade your discharge. However,
the Board concluded that your discharge should not be changed
due to your serious acts of misconduct. The Board particularly
noted that you waived the right to an ADB, your best
opportunity for retention or a better characterization of
service. You are advised that no discharge is upgraded
automatically due solely to the passage of time or post service
good conduct. You are further advised that to use the GI Bill
for educational benefits, you must have an honorable
characterization of service. In view of the above, 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,
\o Nome!
W. DEAN PPEI
Executive Dir
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 | CY2013 | NR6981 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application 29 July 2014. On 13 January 1988, you received an OTH characterization of service discharge due to misconduct (COSO), and were assigned an RE-4 (not. 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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03552 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 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. The ADB voted to separate you with an OTH discharge due to misconduct (COSO).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11995-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 2011. 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 had prior honorable service in the Navy from 1978 to 1983. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08760-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2009. 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...
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 | CY2010 | 08617-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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.
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...