DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JDR
Docket Noa: 5028-14
10 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 interést 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
8 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 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, began a period of active duty on
22 July 2009, and satisfactorily served without disciplinary
incident for about eight months. However, on 6 April 2010, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for larceny.
Although the discharge documentation is not in your record, it
appears that administrative separation action was initiated by
reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and
on 11 May 2010, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your application and record
(although incomplete), carefully weighed all potentially
mitigating factors, such as your period of satisfactory service
and desire to upgrade your discharge. Nevertheless, based on
the information currently contained in your record, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant an
upgrade of your discharge given your misconduct which resulted
in NIP. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
““" ttois 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’NETLEL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5459 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 2015. Subsequently, 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 | CY2014 | NR3839 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 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. information currently contained: in your record, the Board concluded’ these factors were-not sufficient to warrant an upgrade of your discharge given...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3911 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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 | CY2014 | NR3941 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on = -: 18 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. On 29 October 2010, you were so discharged and assigned an RE-3P reentry code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5425 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. Your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4119 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6430 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6409 14
32 three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 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 | NR3849 14
a three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 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 | NR6501 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 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 IjUustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...