Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03854-01
Original file (03854-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

ELP
Docket No. 3854-01
4 October 2001

.-

Dear-

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.

considered your application on
Your allegations of error and injustice were

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
3 October 2001.
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 17 May 1999 for four years.
At that
time, you extended your enlistment for an additional period of 12
months in exchange for the training in the Construction Mechanic
(CM) Guarantee Program.

The record reflects that on 7 January 2000, while at CM  
School, you made a statement to the effect that after failing an
entrance examination for enlistment,
you paid another individual
$100 to retake the test for you.
unable to enter recruit training until May 1999 because up until
then, you were still learning English.
You noted that it took
you five months instead of the normal nine weeks to complete
recruiting training because of a problem reading and taking
tests.

You claimed that you were

"AV'

On 20 January 2000 you were notified that you were being
processed for discharge by reason of fraudulent entry.
advised of your procedural rights and that the least favorable
characterization of service would be a general discharge.
declined to consult with legal counsel or submit a statement in

You

You were

your own behalf, and waived the right to have the case reviewed
Thereafter,
by the general court-martial convening authority.
the discharge authority directed a general discharge by reason of
He stated that the Navy had invested consider-
fraudulent entry.
able time and resources based on the belief that your test scores
were valid.
your inability to comprehend English at a level necessary to
succeed, and you were dropped from   CM 
general discharge on 4 February 2000 and were assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.

However, your performance to date clearly showed

"A" school.

You received a

However,

The Board

In its review of your application the Board conducted a careful
search of your record for any mitigating factors which might
warrant a recharacterization of your general discharge.
no justification for such a change could be found.
noted the letter you wrote to the governor of your state in which
you claim that you were unable to complete training because of
serious family problems at home.
determining what your true statement is,
the governor of your state or the one you made while at the
service school.
your discharge through fraud.
individuals who obtain separation through fraudulent means.
Board concluded that the obtaining an enlistment or discharge by
fraudulent means does not constitute fully honorable service.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals separated by reason of fraudulent entry.
The
Board thus concluded that the discharge and reenlistment code
were proper and no changes are warranted. Accordingly, your
application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.

If that statement was untrue, then you obtained

The Board is not sympathetic to

The names and votes of the members

The Board has no way of

the one you are made to

The

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
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.

You are entitled to have

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

2



Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00102

    Original file (MD01-00102.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00102 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001024, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000114 with Uncharacterized service due to Entry Level Performance and Conduct (A). The applicant states he received an Uncharacterized discharge due to personality disorder, then a DD-215 was issued, changing the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06763-00

    Original file (06763-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    were so separated on 21 July 2000. assigned an RE-3P reenlistment code. The Board noted that the evidence in your Marine Corps record was sufficient to refute the conclusion of your psychologist that you are qualified to serve in the military. the evidence-f your poor adjustment in recruit training and your admission to a fraudulent enlistment were sufficient to support separation from the Marine Corps.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03974-01

    Original file (03974-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    yocr request to change the characterization of As you your You allege that the Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 ( Discharge from Active Duty ”) you were given to sign did not reflect the RE-4 code; and that the nurses and doctors at the Naval Hospital Great Lakes mental health clinic where you were treated did not have an explanation of why you were there. “Certificate of Release or A three-member panel of the Board ’ for Correction of session, considered your application on 3 1 May...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00098

    Original file (FD2003-00098.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVTEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD2003-00098 GENERAL: 'The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, and to change his reenlistment code. Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AMN) (HGH AZC) 1. I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for drug abuse and fraudulent entry.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00999-05

    Original file (00999-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It rejected the unsubstantiated opinion of your forensic psychiatrist that you lacked mental responsibility when you committed the offense that resulted in your discharge, as well as when you requested discharge in lieu of trial by general court-martial for desertion and disobedience of an order.The Board did not concur with the conclusion of the designees of the Specialty Leader for Psychiatry that your mental disorder was aggravated by your naval service. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02482-01

    Original file (02482-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your e.rror and application on 6 June 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance ldith administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this considereld by the Board consisted of Board. The Board noted that an RE-4 reenlistment code is required by regulatory guidance and must The Board thus separated by reason of fraudulent enlistment. Consequently, when...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00465

    Original file (MD02-00465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00465 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020228, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than six months in the military to warrant a change of discharge. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03524-01

    Original file (03524-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, changes in her reenlistment code and narrative reason for separation. An RE-4 reenlistment code must be issued to an individual An RE-3E separated by reason of fraudulent enlistment. However, it does not appear that she would have been enlisted had recruiting authorities known of the arrest warrant.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06296-01

    Original file (06296-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    separated under similar circumstances, the Board could find no The error or injustice in your assignment reenlistment code. to that board. 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 | CY2006 | 09324-06

    Original file (09324-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Regulations approved by the Secretary of the Navy require that Subject’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, in accordance with the approved recommendation of the Board.4. It is requested that this Board be furnished a copy of any correspondence relating to the approved recommendation.BRIAN J. GEORGE By direction DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100TJRDocket No: 9324-0620 September 2007From: Chairman, Board for Correction...