DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
SIN
Docket No: 3855-14
6 May 2015
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 5 May 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 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
3 April 1986. On 14 April and 13 May 1986, you were counseled
regarding your repeated academic failures, and warned that
further deficiencies in your academics could result in
administrative discharge action. On 14 May 1986, you received a
third counseling warning regarding your test failures, and were
set back in your training. Subsequently, administrative
discharge action was initiated, and after being afforded all of
your procedural rights, you were discharged with an entry level
separation by reason of performance and conduct on 12 June 1986.
el
2
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your short period of service, and desire to upgrade your
discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant a change to your characterization of
service given your repeated academic failures during recruit
training. With regard to your characterization of service, the
Board noted that you were notified of your separation process
within 180 days of the beginning of your period of active
service. Navy regulations authorize an uncharacterized entry
level separation if the processing of a Sailor’s separation
begins within 180 days of his entry on active duty. 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.
Since
OBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5565 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 2015. With regard to your characterization of service, the Board noted that you were notified of your separation process within 180 days of the beginning of your period of active service. 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 | CY2008 | 09660-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 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. 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 | CY2014 | NR5075 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 2015. 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 | CY2010 | 00937-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. 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 | CY2014 | NR6971 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 June 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. On 15 April and 30 May 1986, you received (NUP) for two specification of failing to obey a lawful order, a period of four days of UA, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6976 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 June 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5650 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 | NR5104 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 2015. Navy regulations authorize an uncharacterized entry level separation if the processing of a Sailor’s separation begins within 180 days of his entry on active auty Accordingly, your application has been denied. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4961 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 2015. Marine Corps regulations authorize an uncharacterized entry level separation if the processing of a Marine’s separation begins within 180 days of his entry on 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 | NR5991 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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.