Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00064-02
Original file (00064-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

CRS
Docket No: 64-02
19 December  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 17 December 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.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 7
October 1982.
nonjudicial punishments.
The offenses included striking a
sergeant in the face with your boot and permitting a Soviet bloc
female into your assigned bedroom at the American Embassy.
On 5 January 1988 an administrative discharge board (ADB)
recommended that you be separated with an other than honorable
discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious
offense; specifically, three instances of perjury, four instances
of false swearing and two instances of false official statement.
However, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for
separation but directed a general discharge by reason of
misconduct.
At that
time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors,
such as your youth and immaturity
and the contention that your ADB was unjust and that you were not

The record reflects that you received two

You were so discharged on 5 February 1988.

In this regard, the Board concluded

Therefore, the Board concluded that no

Since you have been treated no differently than

However, the Board concluded that these factors were not
guilty.
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given
your disciplinary record.
that any problems with the ADB procedure or findings were
remedied when the discharge authority directed a general
discharge instead of the other than honorable discharge
recommended by the ADB.
change to the discharge is warranted.
Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to
misconduct.
others in your situation, the Board could not find an error or
injustice in the assignment of your reenlistment code.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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.

The names and

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03180-08

    Original file (03180-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2009. 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is separated due to misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01195-10

    Original file (01195-10.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 November 2010. 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 discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07476-01

    Original file (07476-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Punishment imposed consisted of a suspended On 25 April 1995 you were notified that administrative separation action was being initiated to discharge you under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. present your case to an administrative discharge board You appeared before an ADB with counsel on 14 August 1995. The found you had committed misconduct due to ADB, by a vote of 3-0, a pattern of misconduct and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04561-02

    Original file (04561-02.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 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. reason of commission of a serious offense and recommended a general discharge but further recommended the separation be suspended for a period of 12 months. recommendation and directed your discharge by reason of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00488 12

    Original file (00488 12.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 October 2012. 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. On 30 May 1991 you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06798-06

    Original file (06798-06.rtf) 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.After careful an conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Boar found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 2 June 1986 y u enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 12 January 1989 you received NJP for three...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04816-06

    Original file (04816-06.rtf) 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.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 6 November 2003 at age 19. He pointed out that he was surprised when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02574-09

    Original file (02574-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Recotds, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2010. In March 1988 a second Navy Mental Health evaluation was conducted and you were diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity syndrome, tinea pedis, and alcohol dependence, and directed to complete your confinement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5808 13

    Original file (NR5808 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2014. You were then advised that your command was administratively separating you with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to 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 | CY2007 | 03985-07

    Original file (03985-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 January 2008. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...