DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 605-01
21 May 2001
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section
1552.
A three—member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting
in executive session, considered your application on 16 May 2001. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 18 September 1995 for four years at age 18. The
record reflects that you were advanced to QM3 (E-4) and served without
incident until 4 September 1996 for making a false official statement and
fraud against the United States. Punishment consisted of a reduction in
rank to QMSN (E-3), forfeitures of $100 per month for two months, and 45
days of restriction and extra duty. On 12 October 1999 you were honorably
released from active duty, transferred to the Naval Reserve, and assigned
an RE—4 reenlistment code. Available records do not contain a copy the
fitness report submitted upon separation.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE—4 reenlistment code to an
individual not recommended for reenlistment. The Board noted your statement
explaining the circumstance which led to your NJP. You contend that you
filed a claim for bachelor allowance for quarters (BAQ)and variable housing
allowance (VHA) after the birth of son to your girlfriend, who was getting
out of
che Navy because she could not comply with the policy on child care.
However, she was not discharged right away, and you were charged with
filing a false claim since both of you not could receive BAQ/VHA claiming
the same dependent. Absent evidence to the contrary, a presumption exists
that there was no abuse of discretion when the NJP authority chose to
impose NJP. The Board believed given the serious nature of the offense for
which NJP was imposed within the last month of your enlistment, it is
unlikely that you were recommended for reenlistment. You have provided no
evidence to the contrary. The Board concluded that the NJP and your
reduction in rate provided sufficient justification to award an RE-4
reenlistment code. The fact that you received an fully honorable separation
does prohibit assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the
panel will be furnished upon request.
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. 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,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 04069-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 1999. 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. You have submitted a 1996 action in which this Board corrected your record to allow payment of BAQ and VHA from 28 October 1988, the date of birth of...
It was her husband who initiated the actions required to obtain dependent benefits. After summarizing the processing of the Article 15, her military record, and her contentions and the evidence provided to support her appeal, JAJM indicated that although the applicant's explanation of her marital difficulties is compelling, the evidence submitted with her request does not fully 4 AFBCMR 97-00066 support her position. The records indicate that the applicant's military service was...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01739
He receive a Presidential pardon removing his court-martial conviction and bad conduct discharge (BCD) from his record. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. As such, applicant's request for a Presidential pardon is not possible since such action is not within the purview of this Board's authority.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0258
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03705
DFAS-IN states the applicant was discharged from the service due to a General Court-Martial Order, dated 18 July 2007. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The DFAS letter has errors and incorrect information. Based on the evidence of record and in an attempt to guide the applicant to the proper office for resolution, we determined the applicant is correct in that,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02447-00
discharged on 24 February 1997 and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 4 reenlistment code to individuals who are 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 injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01853-02
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a enlisted member in the Naval Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show additional active service and that additional allowances and full separation pay be authorized. The Board considered an advisory opinion that concluded Petitioner was discharged in error. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that he is entitled to full separation pay on 28 July 1997 vice the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03392-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2002. The members of the chain of command were present, made statements and were available to answer questions . He then told LT HI who then called Ms. D. The Board also considered the statement of the retired chief petty officer who stated that you were not derelict in your duties while you were treating him and that he did not see any disrespect.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07611-03
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 est ablishhe exploit of probablernaterial erroror injusticeYou enlisted in the Navy on 29 September 2000 at age 21 and served without disciplinary incident until 26...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007086
Her DD Form 1966/1 (Record of Military Processing Armed Forces of the United States) shows that at the time of her enlistment she had two dependents, a son and husband. The Summary Record and Hearing Decision states: * Based on the facts surrounding the case, the appropriate collection actions and fee accruals were made in accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 * Collection of the debt by AWG will ensure the DOD is reimbursed for the overpayment of VHA that the...