DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
BOARD
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
TRG
Docket No: 8438-00
30 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 24 July 2001.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
your application,
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
together with all material submitted in support
Your allegations of error and
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 1 February
You then served
1991 for four years in the rate of SM2 (E-5).
A special court-martial
without incident for about 44 months.
convened on 14 December 1994 and convicted you of drunk driving,
drunk and disorderly conduct and assault.
The court sentenced
you to 45 days confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of $400 pay
per month for three months and a reduction in rate from SM2 to
SM3 (E-4).
In the performance evaluation for the period 1 April
1994 to 1 February 1995, you received an overall 3.8 evaluation.
The evaluation indicates that at the time it was written, you
were still an SM2.
court-martial conviction but states, in part, as follows:
The evaluation does not mention the special
.
. has been formally counseled on his reliability
.
during this reporting period . . . . is recommended for
advancement but is not recommended for retention in the
U. S. Naval Service due to exceeding high year tenure.
Since you were evaluated as an SM2 and had less than 10 years of
active service, the high year tenure regulations would only apply
if you were an SM3 when the evaluation was written. As
indicated, the evaluation shows that you were an SM2.
On 8 February 1995 a Court Memorandum was issued, apparently to
report the 14 December 1994 special court-martial.
that the sentence included a reduction in rate to SM3.
honorably discharged on 9 March 1995.
that you were still an SM2.
recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an
reenlistment code.
It indicates
You were
The DD Form 214 indicates
At that time you were not
RE-4,
You contend, in effect,
that you were improperly assigned the
4 reenlistment code because the performance evaluation shows that
you were an SM2 and therefore,
the high year tenure regulations
did not apply in your case.
RE-
It appears that errors were made in your case and the performance
evaluation and DD Form 214 should show you were reduced to SM3.
However, even if it could be shown that you were properly an SM2,
the regulations also require the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code to any individual convicted by a special
martial within a year of being released from active duty.
you have been treated no differently than others in this
situation, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the
assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.
court-
Since
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and
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
existence of probable material error or injustice.
to, demonstrate the
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
2
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00597
Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 46 Highest Rate: SM2 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.10 (2) Behavior: 3.40 (2) OTA: 3.30 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR, NAVY"E"MEDAL Days of Unauthorized Absence: 10 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00184
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990319 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense (A and B). The discharge, if adjudged by court martial, tried under the UCMJ, may change only for the purpose of clemency. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise...
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00312
(EQUITY ISSUE) As the documentary evidence of record supports, this former member opines that his post-service conduct has been sufficiently creditable to warrant the Board's clemency relief as authorized under provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 9.3. 950508: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05830-01
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. ing and assistance center determined that you were still not drug dependent and scheduled you for a four week outpatient course, beginning in March 1985. tested positive again for marijuana use on an aftercare urinalysis. not heed the warning that further drug abuse could result...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05872-01
The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 5 November 1993 for three years as a PNSN (E-3). At the time of your separation, E-4 was 10 years. 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 | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00404
ND04-00404 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040115. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :030128: Performance evaluation states Applicant transferred to TPU Norfolk for Parenthood Separation.030605: Applicant declined any screening or treatment after screening by the Command DAPA.030611: NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 030605, tested positive for THC.030625: Applicant notified of intended...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01169-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05980-00
Dear This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United Board for Correction of Navy A three-member panel for the Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 February 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501414
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00651-09
The VA st for service connection for three other ugh you had numerous minor conditions that did jidual compensable ratings, VA rating officials he combination of those minimal disabilities ed you with an unspecified “employment arranted a combined overall rating of 10%. Ther as increased to 40% effective 2 December 1998, ive 30 August 2006. compensable disability rating on 9 March 1995 ate the existence of error or injustice in your this regard, the Board noted that the VA ing without...