DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Y
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203704100
CRS
Docket No: 2226-99
26 June 2000
I
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 of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
Your allegations of error and
application on 20 June 2000.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations‘and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
Board.
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.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps 17 January
The record reflects that you received
1989 at age 18 .
nonjudicial punishment and were convicted by a summary
court-
martial.
a personal check belonging to another Marine, and uttering a
check belonging to another Marine with intent to defraud.
While your record does not contain the separation processing
documents, it appears that the commanding officer recommended
that you be separated with an other than honorable discharge by
reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and,
after review by the discharge authority,
The record clearly
recommendation for separation was approved.
shows that you were discharged with an other than honorable
discharge by reason of misconduct on 30 June 1992.
you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.
Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to
The offenses included violating a base order, stealing
the commanding officer's
At that time
the Board could not find an error or
The names and
since you did not ask for such
Since you have been treated no differently than
misconduct.
others in your situation,
injustice in the assignment of your reenlistment code.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The Board did not consider whether your characterization of
service should be changed,
consideration and you have not exhausted your administrative
remedy by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB).
You may apply to NDRB by submitting the attached DD Form 293.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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
Enclosure
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100173
Court of Appeals Review - Decision dated 30 October 2006; the finding as to the Additional Charge I and its sole specification (Article 80 - Attempts) is set aside. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record and the issues as submitted, the NDRB determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at her court-martial was appropriate.Accordingly, clemency, as requested, is denied. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06215-07
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.On 2 November 1998, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. Given your BCD that resulted from a...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601118
Recommendation on Separation: By Recommendation on Characterization: By Recommendation of Commanding Officer (date): Separation Authority (date):COMMANDING OFFICER, PATROL SQUADRON FOURNarrative reason directed:Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 20000908 Additional Information Considered by Board Type of documentation submitted by the Applicant and considered by the Board Document Type #Pages Related to Period of Service Under Review:Service/Medical Record:2Other Period of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01088-03
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 2003. Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason 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 | CY2007 | 09263-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2008. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03489-03
After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 22 December 2000 you were discharged with an other than honorable At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code discharge. In fact, you were not recommended Concerning your request to change the RE-4 reenlistment code, as a drilling reservist you should not have a reenlistment code. The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for separation should be...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900918
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. His misconduct should not have changed his characterization based on his record of service. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.” Additional Reviews: After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07475-01
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 other Sailor admitted to assaulting a You and another Sailor were charged with On 21 October 1980 the On 3 November 1980 the Chief of Naval Personnel advised the command that it planned to take no separation action on the foregoing matter. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 07727-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considere@a your -application on 2 August 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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02327-07
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.On 28 November 2000, you enlisted in the Navy at age 20. On 27 January 2004, you were so discharged...