DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
bear
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 14 November 2014. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be Furnished upon request. 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
imjustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 9 October 1984. On 17 July 1985, you were convicted by
civil authorities of possession of stolen property and were
sentenced to 180 days confinement and three years probation. On
4 October 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NOP) for
being absent from your appointed place of duty. On 17 December
1985, you received NUP for two incidents of being absent from
your appointed place of duty and breaking restriction on two
occasions. Subsequently, you were notified of pending
administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to civil
conviction at which time you elected to have your case heard by
an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 4 February 1986,
the ADB found that you did commit misconduct and recommended
that you be separated. Your commanding officer agreed with the
ADB and forwarded his recommendation. The discharge authority
approved these recommendations and directed separation under
other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on
10 March 1986, you were SO discharged and assigned an RE-4
(ineligible for reenlistment) reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your discharge and contention that you
‘should have received a medical discharge based on your claim of
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in
your case because of the seriousness of your misconduct and lack
of material evidence to support PTSD. Accordingly, your
application has been denied.
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’ NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR00164 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 November 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 ex i stence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10140-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, reguiations, and policies. With regard to your reenlistment code, the Board found no factors to warrant a change, which was based on your disciplinary record and substandard behavior. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged due to misconduct.
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 | CY2010 | 05254-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted Or your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policiés: After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11109-06
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 enlisted in the Navy on 23 October 1984 at age 20 and served about four months without...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8344 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 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. on 20 August 1986, you received NUP for breaking restriction.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04128-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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 | CY2009 | 00260-09
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. On 23 April 1986, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern 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 | CY2009 | 04135-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03355-09
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. On 8 September 1986, the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern 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...