DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BUG
Docket No: 4956-11
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 22 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You reenlisted in the Navy on 9 November 1984 after more than
two years of prior honorable service. You received nonjudicial
punishment and a special court-martial. Your offenses included
dereliction of duties, a three day period of unauthorized
absence, missing your ship’s movement, and sleeping on post.
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. You waived your procedural right to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 20 March 1987, you
received an OTH characterization of service discharge due to
misconduct, 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, prior
honorable service, current desire for veterans’ benefits, and
allegation that you were actually on emergency leave when you
missed the movement of your ship. However, the Board concluded
that your discharge should not be changed due to your 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. Regarding your allegation, the
Board found that you provided no evidence to support it, and
there is no such evidence in your record. Finally, you are
advised that no discharge is upgraded automatically due solely
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 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,
Ly Dou
W. DEAN PF
Executive Dinhe
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00286-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. On 9 May 1986, you received NUP for being UA for one day.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02730-11
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05217 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 | 11888-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BUG Docket No: 11888-1090 3 August 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. 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. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5881 13
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. Your commanding officer then recommended 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04594-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02748-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 January 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. 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 | CY2012 | 00295-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reentry code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR630 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. You were then advised that your command was recommending you for administrative separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5308 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application 14 May 2014. On 22 January 1991, you received an OTH characterization of service discharge due to misconduct, and were assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reenlistment 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.