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 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 7835-01
13 March 2002
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 12 March 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 11 April 1988 at age 22 and
reported for three years of active duty that same day. During
1989 you received nonjudicial punishment on three occasions.
Your offenses were an unauthorized absence of about eight hours,
drunk driving, and two instances of disobedience. On 27 March
1990 you were convicted by a special court-martial of committing
carnal knowledge with a female under the age of 16 years,
wrongfully supplying liquor to a minor and disobedience. The
court sentenced you to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of
$450 and 35 days confinement at hard labor.
On 1 May 1990 you were notified of separation processing by
reason of misconduct due to your commission of a serious offense.
On 17 May 1990 an administrative discharge board found that you
had committed a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct, but
recommended your retention in the Navy. The retention
recommendation was apparently based on testimony to the effect
that several sailors had sex with the girl and nobody was aware
that she was only 16 years old. After review, the recommendation
for retention was approved.
You then served without incident until you were released from
active duty on 23 May 1991 in the rate of MSSA (E-2) with your
service characterized as honorable. At that time you were not
recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code. Subsequently, you were issued an honorable
discharge at the end of your military obligation.
You state in your application that you have been a sober
hardworking citizen since discharge. You desire a change in the
reenlistment code so that you can again serve in the Navy.
The Board believed that a record which included three nonjudicial
punishments and a conviction by a special court-martial was
sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment
code. In addition, regulations require the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code to individuals serving in pay grade E-2 on
completion of an extended period of active duty. The Board
concluded that the RE-4 reenlistment code was proper as assigned
and no change is warranted.
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00580-02
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05839-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 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. 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 | 02926-01
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 | CY2001 | 07447-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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. The Board found that a record which includes five nonjudicial punishments and the final adverse performance evaluation was sufficient to support 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 | CY2001 | 07504-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 March 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 | CY1999 | 01912-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Cor ection of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, co sidered your application on 11 August 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materqal 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 | 02182-02
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 | CY2001 | 06700-01
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. 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 25 February 1993 you received your fourth NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06935-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2002. Regulations in effect at the time of your release from active duty allowed for early release from active duty in certain circumstances. 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.