DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
REC
Docket No: 00475-12
1 November 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 24 October 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 4
March 2009, at age 19. On 2 October 2009, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for failure to obey an order by
drinking alcohol while under age. On 13 November 2009, you
received NUP for failure to obey an order on two occasions. On
12 February 2010, you received NJP for three incidents of
failure to obey an order by wearing unauthorized eivilian
clothing, not properly signing out of the command, and leaving
without utilizing the buddy system. You were notified that
administrative discharge procedures were initiated and that you
would receive a general discharge due to misconduct upon your
separation. The discharge authority directed a general
discharge. You were so discharged on 18 March 2010, and
assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reentry code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
record of service. However, the Board found that these factors
were not sufficient to warrant any change in your reentry code,
given your record of three NUP’s for misconduct and non-
recommendation for retention. The Board also noted that you
were fortunate to receive a general discharge since a separation
under other than honorable conditions is often directed when an
individual is found to have committed misconduct. Accordingly,
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,
ROBERT D, ALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8257 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. On 11 February 2012, you were honorably released from active duty and assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reentry code. In this regard, it noted that an RE-4 reentry code is required when an individual is not recommended for retention, as in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0451 14
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 were separated on 9 December 2012, with an honorable discharge due to non-retention on active...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03787-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 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. - Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate th existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0649 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 June 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. You were separated on 15 July 2011, with an honorable discharge due to non-retention on active duty and assigned an RE-3C (when directed by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02963-09
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 waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0265 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2014. On 30 January 2009, you received NUP for failure to obey an order/regulation by operating a government vehicle while exceeding the speed limit. 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 | 06210-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 March 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 | CY2011 | 12050 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 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 | CY2012 | 00459 12
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 requested to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). The Board did not consider whether your discharge should be upgraded due to the fact that since it is less than 15 years old, you must first apply to the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01675-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. The Board -also noted that you ‘were fortunate to receive a general discharge, because when individuals are separated for misconduct ghey normally receive an other than honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...