DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
“ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BC
Docket No: 00655-14
13 March 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 thie Board for Correction of Naval’
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 March 2014. Your allegations of error and
injustice: were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procédures 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 Ebe existence | of probable material error or
injustice. co _ - JY
_ You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 7
July 1983... On 24 August 1984, you. received nonjudicial
simi shimtent {NOP) for being disrespectful toward a senior petty
officer and dereliction in the. performance of your duties. On
31 January 1985, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward
a senior petty officer and disobeying a lawful order. oOn.8 May
° 1987, you. received: NUP for being disrespectful toward a. petty
officer. On 22 June 1987, you were not recommended for
reenlistment. . You were separated on 22 June 1987, with an-
~ honorable characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 (not
recommended for reenlistment) reenlistment code,
an
“The: Board, in its review of your. entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially. mitigating factors present in
your case, including your medical condition. However, the Board
found those factors were insufficient to warrant any change in
your reenlistment code, given your record of three NJP's for
misconduct and non-recommendation for reenlistment.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and ~
votes of the members of ne 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 ©
aterial evidence or other matter not previously considered by
ithe 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,
TRB Kat
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN :
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12133-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 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 | CY2013 | NR8250 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 3 April 1987, you were advised that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) due to misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board found those factors insufficient to warrant changing the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04238-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2010. On 10 May 1988, you received NIP for UA from you appointed place of 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 | CY2012 | 00468 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 §. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7594 13
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. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09317-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2009. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth. 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 | CY2010 | 05796-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00453-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 2010. 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 | NR8330 13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 5. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 September 2014. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your two NUP’s, one of which was after you were notified that you were being administratively separated for a serious offense.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01195-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 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. The discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.