DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
SIN
Docket No: 4513-14
23 April 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.
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of
limitations 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 21 April 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 maval record, and
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
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.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
23 July 1990. On 14 March 1991 and 21 March 1994, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for assault and failing to go to
your appointed place of duty. On 13 May 1994, you were honorably
released from active duty by reason of “reduction in force”, At
that time you were not recommended for reenlistment, and were
assigned an RE-4 reentry code. You were discharged on 10 April
1998.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service and desire to upgrade your discharge.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant a change in your reentry code given your
two NUP’s, and non-recommendation for retention by your
commanding officer. In this regard, an RE-4 reentry code is
required when an individual is separated due to a “reduction in
force” and is not recommended for 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 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.
Sincggxely,
OBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4510 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 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 this regard, an RE-3C reentry code is authorized when a Marine is released from active duty and not recommended for reenlistment.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04035-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2013. 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 14 April 1994, administrative separation action was initiated by reason of misconduct (drug abuse).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5338 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2015. Your commanding officer’s decision to impose NUP was appropriate, and is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed. 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 | NR3461 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 March 2015. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use, You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement, or have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6433 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 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 | NR3986 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05178-10
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 17 May 1994, your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct (drug abuse). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6276 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3992 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4025 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2015. 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. 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...