Rr a, a ny
Tw TEE FUrcvror
ROARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
707 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
s
z
BC
Docket No: 00647-14
an
74 Ne dee Te ee a
Pe VELUYSL 42UL4
Dear
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 29 October 2014. 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 21 June 2004, Subsequently, you were the subject of
investigation on two occasions due to your misconduct. Although
you did not received disciplinary action regarding your
misconduct, your chain of command lost confidence in your ability
and performance, and ag such, you were not recommended for
retention. Nevertheless, you submitted a request for
reenlistment which was denied due to an unfavorable endorsement
from your chain of command. AS a result of the foregoing, on 30
August 2012, you received an honorable discharge and were
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to reenlist, and contention that your chain of
command had unsupported evidence. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in
your case. Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and you
provided none, to support your assertion. Accordingly, your
application has been denied.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
¢hat 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 ig on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of
probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O'NETULL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10284-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 July 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and desire...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07450-06
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 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 on 3 June 1999 at age 18. You were honorably released from active duty, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00904 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2012. On 31 January 1983, you were again UA for 20 days with no disciplinary action taken by your chain of command. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05857-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 March 2009. 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 | 01048-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 2010. However, at completion of your evaluation, you began a period of UA lasting 442 days. On 9 November 1979, your request for discharge was denied.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1206 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2015. Since you enlisted in error, you were assigned the most appropriate reenlistment code based on your circumstances. 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 | 10506-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval’ Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 2011. 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the characterization of your discharge, given your record...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03183-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 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. On 24 January 2003, the Department of the Navy, Central Adjudication Facility (DON CAF) informed you via your commanding officer (CO), of their...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02574-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Recotds, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2010. In March 1988 a second Navy Mental Health evaluation was conducted and you were diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity syndrome, tinea pedis, and alcohol dependence, and directed to complete your confinement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7443 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on S 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...