Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07215-01
Original file (07215-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2   N A V Y   A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

TJR 
Docket No: 7215-01 
5 April 2002 

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 
application on 2 April 2002.  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. 

The Board found you enlisted in the Navy on 18 June 1996 at the 
age of 18.  Your record reflects that on 14 September 1996 you 
were apprehended by civil authorities for theft.  On 19 September 
1996 you were convicted by civil authorities of the foregoing 
charge and sentenced to a fine, probation fee, and to perform 
three days of community service. 

Your record also reflects that on 30 January 1997 you received 
nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) for theft of property valued at $28 
from a Navy Exchange and underage drinking.  The punishment 
imposed was restriction for 60 days and a $800 forfeiture of pay. 
Subsequently, on 19 March  1997, you were notified of pending 
administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to 
commission of a serious offense and civil conviction.  At that 
time you waived your rights to consult with legal counsel and to 
submit a letter of rebuttal to the separation.  On 31 March 1997 
your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable 
discharge by reason of misconduct due civil conviction.  The 
discharge authority approved the foregoing recommendation and 

directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of 
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  On 17 October 
1997 you were so discharged and 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 youth and immaturity and your contention that you should not 
have to suffer the rest of your life with an RE-4 reenlistment 
code.  However, the Board concluded these factors and contention 
were not sufficient to warrant a change of your reenlistment code 
because of your repetitive misconduct, in both the military and 
civil communities.  Further, an individual separated by reason of 
misconduct must receive an RE-4  reenlistment code.  Given all the 
circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your reenlistment 
code was proper and no change is warranted.  Accordingly, your 
application has been denied. 

The Board noted that you are entitled to submit the attached 
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States  (DD Form 293) to the Naval 
Council of Personnel Boards, attention: Naval Discharge Review 
Board, Building 36, Fourth Floor, Washington Navy Yard, 901 M 
Street, S. E., Washington, DC 2 0 3 7 4 - 5 0 2 3   for consideration of an 
upgrade of your discharge and a change in your narrative reason 
for discharge. 

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 

Enclosure 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02926-01

    Original file (02926-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2002. 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 | 00406-02

    Original file (00406-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2002. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07914-01

    Original file (07914-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 April 2002. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00784-02

    Original file (00784-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 March 2002. 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 | CY2001 | 08037-01

    Original file (08037-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2002. However, regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to a diagnosed personality disorder, and such a code is normally assigned when an individual is at risk to harm herself or others. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07314-01

    Original file (07314-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 March 2002. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You enlisted in the Navy on 3 August 1994 for four years at age 18.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02182-02

    Original file (02182-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 April 2002. 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 did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for separation should be changed, since you did not ask for such...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10414-02

    Original file (10414-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. An RE-4 reenlistment code is required by regulatory guidance and must be assigned to individuals who are separated by reason of fraudulent enlistment. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00632-02

    Original file (00632-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2002. 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. CNP further directed that you be advised that you were being placed in a probationary status for a period of 12 months and that the CO was authorized to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00580-02

    Original file (00580-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2002. The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 23 February 1988 for three years. The Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned reenlistment code since you were treated no differently than others discharged under similar circumstances.