DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BC
Docket No: 00028-14
26 June 2014
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 25 June 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 26
February 2003. On 30 September 2004, you were in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status for one day. However, your
chain of command chose to take no disciplinary action. On 15
March 2006, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being
in a UA status for one day, missing ship’s movement, and failure
‘to obey a lawful order. On 10 May 2006, you received NJP for
two incidents of failure to obey a lawful order. On a special
evaluation from 16 March through 10 May 2006, you were not
recommended for retention. You were separated on 26 February
2007, with an honorable characterization of service and assigned
an RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code while
serving in pay grade E-3.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors present in
your case. However, the Board found those factors were
insufficient to warrant any change in your reentry code, given
your record of two NJP's for misconduct and non-recommendation
for reenlistment. 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 | faverable,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 ‘egard, 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,
Se Se S 7 cm,
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0689 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 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 | CY2013 | NR7904 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. During this period of UA you were processed for an administrative separation by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05227-06
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.On 19 May 1980 you reenlisted in the Navy at age 21 after a prior period of honorable service. On 26...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0729 14
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 | CY2013 | NR5286 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient Co establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09267-05
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 29 October 1964 at age 19 after completing a previous period of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR632 14
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 | NR3342-13
1980, you made a written request for an other _ than honorable (OTH) discharge to-avoid trial by court-martial for three instances of UA from your unit for a period totaling 30 days, failure to go to you appointed place of duty, . ‘The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as recharacterization of your. when your request for.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07006-09
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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the characterization of your discharge, given your record of four NJP’s for misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02466-06
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 30 September 1981 after four years of prior honorable service. The...