DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 TIR
Docket No: 4736-11
16 February 2012
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 14 February 2012. 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.
Your record reflects that you enlisted in the Navy on 6 August
1987 and served without disciplinary infraction until 30 January
1989, when you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for an
unspecified period. On 8 February 1989 you were again UA for an
unspecified period. The record does not reflect the disciplinary
action taken, if any, for these periods of UA.
Your record contains a court memorandum which reflects that
during the period from 16 April to 1 May 1991 you were ina UA
Status for 16 days. However, it does not reflect the
disciplinary action taken for this misconduct. About seven
months later, on 26 December 1991, you received nonjudicial
punishment for absence from your appointed place of duty and
failure to obey a lawful order. The punishment imposed was
restriction and extra duty for 10 days and reduction to paygrade
E-3. The reduction was suspended for three months.
On 13 July 1995 you again received NJP for failure to obey a
lawful order and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 45
days and reduction to paygrade E-4. The restriction was
suspended for six months.
Your record also reflects that on 2 August 1997, while serving in
paygrade E-4, you completed your required active service,
transferred to the Naval Reserve, and were assigned an RE-1
reenlistment code. However, the record further reflects that as
a result of a positive urinalysis, you were identified as a drug
abuser and advised that any further such incidents would result
in an administrative separation. On 3 August 1998 you were
terminated from the Naval Reserve by reason of unsatisfactory
drill participation as evidenced by your inability to maintain
satisfactory drill attendance. As a result, you were not
recommended for reaffiliation and transferred to the Inactive
Ready Reserve. Subsequently, on 19 March 2000, you were
honorably discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to have derogatory documentation removed from your
record and your record corrected to reflect reinstatement to
paygrade E-5. It also considered your assertion that you were
hastily processed for separation. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in
your case because of the seriousness of your misconduct, which
resulted in two NUPs and include drug abuse, your unsatisfactory
drill participation, and nonrecommendation for reaffiliation.
Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted
none, to support your assertion. 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 | CY2008 | 03537-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2009. 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 | 03627-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 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 | 11357-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. 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 | CY2003 | 07995-03
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 injusticeYou enlisted in the Marine Corps on January 1971 at age 17 During the period from 1 April to 29 October...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09236-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2008. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and assertions that your misconduct and discharge were the result of you being under the influence of alcohol, and that you were not offered treatment for your alcohol abuse. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09424-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2009. 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. In this regard, you did not appeal your NUPs or submit rebuttal statements to your substandard performance evaluations.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02466-06
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 30 September 1981 after four years of prior honorable service. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05575-06
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 7 July 1989 after four years of prior honorable service. You served...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08600-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2007. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Nevertheless, on 17 November 1969 you received your sixth NUP for failure to obey a lawful order and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days. The record further reflects that on 1...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03012-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 January 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...