Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4298-13
Original file (NR4298-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

CRS
Docket No: 4298-13
2 April 2014

i

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 January 2014. 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.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 27 July
2004. You received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions for

offenses that included two periods of unauthorized absence
totaling 40 days.

On 28 April 2006 your commanding officer recommended that you be
separated with a discharge under other than honorable conditions
by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. After
review. by the discharge authority, the recommendation for
separation was approved and on 18 May 2006 you received a
discharge under other than honorable conditions, and were
assigned a reentry code of RE-4.

The Board concluded that as the assignment of a reentry code of
RE-4 is required when an individual is discharged by reason of
misconduct, there is no basis for any corrective action in your
case. 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 dre 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, whén 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,
Re RD |
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

i

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0729 14

    Original file (NR0729 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 July 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 must first apply to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR632 14

    Original file (NR632 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2014. 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 error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3446-13

    Original file (NR3446-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR028 14

    Original file (NR028 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    — A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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. 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 | NR4577 13

    Original file (NR4577 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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. 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 | CY2014 | NR2496 14

    Original file (NR2496 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. 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 | NR4860-13

    Original file (NR4860-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive. ‘Documentary : material considered by the Board consisted of your application, tegether 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5170 13

    Original file (NR5170 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 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 exercised your procedural right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4355 13

    Original file (NR4355 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2014. On 9 February 2010, you completed your active duty obligation in pay grade E-1, were honorably transferred to the Navy Reserve, and assigned an RE-4 (not. 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 | CY2013 | NR4351 13

    Original file (NR4351 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 April 2014. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing your reentry code given the seriousness of your misconduct that resulted in two NUPs, a ‘civil conviction and that you were no longer qualified for submarine service... The Board believed you were fortunate to receive a general discharge since Sailors who are...