, DEPARTMENT ‘OF THE. NAVY =
‘BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. RECORDS
701-S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
. ARLINGTON, VA 22204- 2490 : *
Lote ok : a Docket No: 2089-14
“+ vi us - ’ - 23 March 2015
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of TAELe 10, .United
States Code, Section L552.)
Although your ‘application was not filed ina timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of.
jimitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17
March 2015. 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: fotind' the: evidente submitted. was ‘insufficient
to ‘establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice. “oe
You enlisted in ‘ee: Navy" and- “began a seriod of active duty on’ 17
September | 1984. “Your ‘record ‘reflects that’ during the period from
4-May 1989 to 20 February 1990, you received nonjudicial ~
punishment (NUP) for absence from your appointed place of duty
and three specifications of disobedience, and were counselled ‘on
three occasions for failure to pay just: debts. - You were
subsequently processed for an administrative separation by reason
- O£ miscoriduct due: to commission of a serious offense, ard on 27
March 1990, °you.were' discharged tinder: other than honorable
conditions ‘by -reason of misconduct: At that time you were not
recommended for retention or reenlistment’ and’ assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code. :
Your record’ further reflects that on 9: November:1998, thé Naval
Discharge’ Review Board (NDRB) chariged the’ ¢haracterization: of
your sérvice to “general under’ ‘honorable conditions.”
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to change your RE-4 reenlistment code based on the
change in your record made by NDRB. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in
your case because of the seriousness of your misconduct.
Further, the Board noted that you were found guilty at NUP and
not recommended for retention or reenlistment. With that being
-said, the Board concluded that the change made by NDRB in no way
negated these actions. Finally, the Board believed that you were
fortunate to have received a change in your record and concluded
that any further change was unwarranted. 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 or other matter not previously considered by the Board
within one year from the date of the Board’s decision. 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,
REOBERT J. O'NEILE
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2045 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction.of Naval Records, sitting in executive. Your ‘record “further reflects that on 19 October 2010, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) changed your characterization of service to “honorable” and your narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” © 000 er beh a The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to change your RE-4 reenlistment...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3955 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2015. 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. Your record further reflects that on 8 October 2013, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) changed the characterization of your service to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4513 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2015. Arter 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...
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 | CY2014 | NR11768 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 Aprii 2015. 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 | CY2009 | 00094-09
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09424-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2009. 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. In this regard, you did not appeal your NUPs or submit rebuttal statements to your substandard performance evaluations.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7002 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4741 14
A - three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on. 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 or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5067 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 2015. 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...