DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7Ot S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
CRS
Docket No: 8506-13
5 May 2014
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States. section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 February 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 on 24 February
2004. On 11 September 2012 you received nonjudicial punishment
for two periods of unauthorized absence. The punishment
consisted of a forfeiture of $1181.00 and reduction in pay
grade, which was suspended. On 24 July 2013 you received a
discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
The Board found no merit in your request to'remove the
nonjudicial punishment of 11 September 2012 which you contend
was imposed even though your unauthorized absences were
approved. It concluded that your commanding officer acted
reasonably in your case, that he was in the best position to
resolve the factual issues and to impose appropriate punishment.
There is no credible evidence that you did not commit the
charged offenses. Accordingly, your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.
The Board did not consider whether your characterization of
service should be changed, since you have not exhausted your
administrative remedies by applying to the Naval Discharge
Review Board (NDRB) >” You may do so by submitting the attached
DD Form 293 to the NDRB.
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 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. ~“ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3462 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2013. Documentary material considered 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 12082 12
The Board did not consider your request for correction of your reentry code, as the request was previously denied, and you have not submitted any new material evidence concerning that request. 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...
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 | CY2013 | NR1449-13
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 | CY2013 | NR9132 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 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 | NR4094-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 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 | NR3358-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. have not exhausted your administrative remedy of submitting the attached Application for the Review of: Discharge or . 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 | NR4415 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. 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 | NR5818 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2014. However, the Board concluded that your discharge should not be upgraded due to your acts of misconduct. 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 | NR9118 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2014. you waived your right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). The Board did not consider whether your character of service and narrative reason for discharge should be changed due to the fact that your discharge is less than 15 years old, so you must first apply to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB).