DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TAL
Docket No: 4786-11
22 February 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 8 February 2012. 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 reenlisted in the Marine Corps in 1982 after more than four
years of prior honorable service. On 8 February 1987, you were
charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter while driving
under the influence of alcohol in San Diego, California. On 13
September 1987 you were notified of pending administrative
discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH)
discharge due to misconduct. After consulting with legal
counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB). On 18 August 1989, the ADB found that
you committed misconduct and recommended that you be separated
with an OTH discharge. On 4 November 1989 the separation
authority agreed with the recommendation of the ADB and directed
your commanding officer to issue you an OTH discharge by reason
of misconduct, and on 5 December 1989, you were SO discharged.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and prior
honorable service. Nevertheless, the Board found that these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct that
resulted in a civil conviction. Members of the armed services
who are convicted by civil authorities may be discharged for
misconduct. Finally, there is no provision of law of in Navy
regulations that allows for recharacterization of service due
solely to the passage of time. Accordingly, your application
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 anjustice.
Sincerely,
ly Doard
W. DEAN PFEWF
Executive DNrector
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10654-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05741-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2008. On 15 January 1990, you began a UA that ended on 3 February 1990, a period of about 19 days. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00060-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04831-11
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. You were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct (drug abuse). 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 | NR7266 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2014. 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 24 January 1989, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge ‘action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02613-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 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. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1624-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 January 2014. 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 | CY2011 | 04827-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06979-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 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 | CY2009 | 03783-09
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. You elected to consult with legal counsel and subsequently requested an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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.