DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
TAL
Docket No: 8918-13
30 September 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 Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 17 September 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 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 April 1988 at age 22: On 29 June 1988, you received
nonjudicial punishment for unauthorized absence from your unit
and unlawful entry. You were notified of pending administrative
discharge processing with an entry level separation due to
unsatisfactory performance/conduct. On 15 July 1988, your
commanding officer directed an uncharacterized entry level
discharge due to performance/conduct.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant characterizing your
‘service given your misconduct and inability to adapt to the
military environment. You are advised that a Sailor who is
processed for administrative separation within 180 days of
entering active duty will receive an uncharacterized discharge.
Finally, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations
that allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the
passage of time. 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 * ‘within one year from the date of the Board’s
decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by
‘the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 J. O’NETLL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06897-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2007. On 3 August 1988 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of performance and conduct due to academic failure. 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 | CY2009 | 06479-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 June 2010. 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 | CY2007 | 07705-07
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. At this time you were not recommended for retention or reenlistment, and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code because of your failure to complete basic training due to your lack...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01545-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 2010. 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 30 November 1988 you were notified of administrative separation by reason of erroneous enlistment.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2924 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on.the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2731-13
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. an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of fraudulent enlistment. 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 | NR5000 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2014. However, the Board concluded that your application should be denied due to your failure to complete a minimum of 180 days of active duty. 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 | CY2014 | NR2910 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11969-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 2011. On 17 October 1988, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by reason 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 | NR5739 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 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...