DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Rr | { YCORPRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD!
ROAD. SUITE 1001
Des = hs
This is in refe
naval
record
ar
States Code,
A three-membe1 yrrection
sitt
application on 26 March 2015
the
consider ec
Records,
The and vote
panel will be furni
names
members of shed upon request
f
allegations of riustice were
with a@ministrative requlations and procedures app
proceedings of | his Board. Documente
the Board consisled of your appl ication, togethe1
material submitted in support thereol, your Neva
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies
and
conse
careful
the
to establish
After
record, found the evidence
Board
the existence yf probable
injustice
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of act
25 September 2006. You served ithout disciplinal
until 17 April 2008, when you re ceived nonjudicia
(NOP) for unauthorized absence, failure to obey al
being drunk on duty. Shortly thereafter, you
limited duty status due a
recommended for an administrat e separation by 1
medical/physical procurement n 14 Octobe? 08,
discharged with a general characte
: ae sacar ; gina wn t ‘} ATs
assigned an RE-4 reent) eode. On ren |
Discharae Review Boal | NOPRB) hanaed youl narrat.
separat ion to Whae7at ay} 1 whorl " hased on €«
Ss at O! Eo
ion of your
ider i b
~~ nd
ent
in lent
iInishment
der, and
Lt Y were
e)
a |
Na
} for
LCE rn Lng
you were worldwide assignable without limitations 16 days prior
to separation. The NDPRB denied your request to upgrade the
characterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of
your misconduct.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating tactors, such as
your desire to upgrade you! reenlistment code. Nevertheless,
the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
relief in your case, given the seriousness of your misconduct
and you were not recommended for reenlistment., Finally,
violations of Article 92 and 112 are considered serious offenses
and Sailors found guilty of these charges would normally be
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code, which is a bar to
reenlistment. 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,
ROBERT J. O/NEILL
Executive Director
ST eee
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2117 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Recc sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2014. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your 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 | CY2004 | 03999-04
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with 1 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injusticeThe Board found that you entitledSeptember 1998. The record ref lets that o 14 April 2000 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10442-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 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. In connection with this processing, you would have acknowledged the separation action and the discharge authority would have approved a recommendation for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1805 14_Redacted
A chree-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 201~ . Documentary material co~sidered by the Board consisted o: your application, together with a:l material submitted in support thereo:, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regula~ions, and po_icies. During this period of UA, May 1991, you were declared a deserter.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4367 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of the record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR621 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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 pclicies. After applying these guidelines to the evidence in the case, the Board was not able to substantiate the existence o= PTSD in your case .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2403 14
A- ' three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval -Records, sitting in executive. 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3364 13
TAL Docket No: 3364-13 24 November 2014 your application ror wena ection of your the provis sions t Ny = 10 of the United Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the the statute of Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the st t Limitations and consider your application on its merits. three-member panel of the Board fo or Correction of Naval Records , sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2014. The names and votes of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 05016-04
In additio~i, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by Hea~quarters Marine Corps dated 14 September and 4 November 004, copies of which are attached. We recommend that Petitioner’s request for relief be denied. 4 Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECT ON OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION Finally, as for Petition~r’s request that her reenlistment code be changed, we concur witFh the Performance Evaluation Review Branch comments that Petltioner’s code was correctly assigned and that the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06798-06
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 an conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Boar found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 2 June 1986 y u enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 12 January 1989 you received NJP for three...