Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04374-01
Original file (04374-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

JRE
Docket No: 4374-01
10 July 2001

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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 2 1 June 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.

The Board found that you served on active duty in the Navy from 28 January to 11 February
1997, when you were discharged by reason of failure to meet medical/physical procurement
fitness standards due to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, which you failed to disclose
when you applied for enlistment. You were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, as
required by governing directives.

The Board appreciates your desire to reenlist, but in the absence of evidence which
demonstrates that your discharge was erroneous, it was unable to recommend any corrective
action in your case. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of
the members of the 

pane! 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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05719-01

    Original file (05719-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 August 2001. 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. The Board noted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10188-05

    Original file (10188-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2007. 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 | 01639-02

    Original file (01639-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. recommendation, you elected to waive the right to present your case to an administrative discharge board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03350-02

    Original file (03350-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 2002. 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04524-01

    Original file (04524-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and The record reflects that you received three Dear This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00505-03

    Original file (00505-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 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 | CY2002 | 06144-01

    Original file (06144-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. than others separated from the Navy for that reason, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the 4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01104-01

    Original file (01104-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Correction,of Naval A three-member panel of the Board for Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2001. 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. have the best reenlistment code authorized by regulations, and have been treated no differently than others discharged by reason of hardship, the Board could not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07509-01

    Original file (07509-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 2001. 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. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07546-01

    Original file (07546-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 October 2001. 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. The Board found that your request was granted and, as court- You received an other At that time you The Board noted that applicable regulations require...