DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TAL
Docket No: 5338-14
4 June 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. The application was filed in
a timely manner.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 20 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.
The Board found that on 29 September 2012, you were cited by
Civil authorities for driving under the influence (DUI) with
blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.11 percent. On
24 October 2012, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
You did not appeal the NUP. The Board noted the civil
authorities dismissed your DUI charge. On 27 April 2013, you
were released from active duty with an honorable
characterization of service and were assigned an RE-3
reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighted all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to remove the NUP and change your reentry code.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant relief in your case. Your commanding
officer’s decision to impose NUP was appropriate, and is
administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed.
The decision of the civil court to dismiss your charge does not
negate the offense for which you received NUP. Furthermore, the
RE-3C code may not prohibit reenlistment, but requires a waiver
be obtained from recruiting personnel who are responsible for
determining whether you meet the requirements 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.
Sincerely,
ROBERT O’ NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0258 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application-on 12 March 2014. The fact that civil authorities dismissed the charge of DUI does not invalidate the NUP you received for this: offense. 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 | NR11597 14
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 3 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. After careful...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07811-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 8 February 2002, you were once again counseled about your conduct and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative separation action. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 06939 12
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 thus concluded that there was no error or injustice in your NUP. 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 | CY2012 | 00431 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 2012. 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 19 December 1995, you were discharged from active duty with a general characterization of service due to alcohol rehabilitation failure and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6535 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 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 | CY2009 | 10483-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2010. Upon completion of the program, you were recommended for separation with a general discharge due to commission of a serious offence. 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 | CY2010 | 00281-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 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. AS a result of the foregoing, on 18 February 1994, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5468 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. 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 | CY2002 | 00580-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2002. The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 23 February 1988 for three years. The Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned reenlistment code since you were treated no differently than others discharged under similar circumstances.