DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
704 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BUG
Docket No: 3442-11
23 January 2012
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 5 January 2012. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicabie 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 3 October
1985. You received nonjudicial punishment on three occasions
for four periods of unauthorized absence totaling 17 days,
disobeying a lawful regulation, driving under the influence of
alcohol, failure to obey a lawful order, minor in possession of
alcoholic beverages, using a false or unauthorized pass, and
insubordinate conduct. You were then notified that your
commanding officer was recommending you for administrative
separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization
of service due to misconduct. You exercised your procedural
right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge
board (ADB). The ADB met, found that you had committed
misconduct, and recommended an OTH characterization of service.
On 3 October 1988, you were discharged with an OTH
characterization of service due to misconduct, and 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, remorse,
medical issues, post service good conduct, and current desire to
upgrade your discharge. However, the Board concluded that your
discharge should not be changed due to your acts of misconduct.
You are advised that no discharge is upgraded due merely to the
passage of time or post service good conduct. 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 entitied 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,
\s \.
W. DEAN PF
Executive tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00025 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 2012. The ADB met, found that you had committed misconduct, and recommended an OTH characterization of service discharge due to unfitness. 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 | CY2011 | 04960-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 February 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR4806 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 March 2014. You were then advised that your command was recommending you for administrative separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to misconduct. 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 | CY2011 | 05441 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 2012. 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. 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 | CY2011 | 03433-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 2012. 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 - drug abuse (use). 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 | 04632-11
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. However, the Board concluded that your discharge should not be changed due to your acts of misconduct. 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 | CY2011 | 01317-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11798-10
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 alli 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 | CY2012 | 00561 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2012. 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. 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 | 05566-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2011. You also had two additional periods of UA totaling 37 days for which no disciplinary action was taken. 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.