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
WMP
Docket No: 0848-02
30 May 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 5 June 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 Navy on 31 July 1991
for four years at age 18. On 9 October 1991, after three
episodes of bedwetting while at recruit training, you were
diagnosed with enuresis. During the psychological assessment,
you revealed a prior history of between two to three episodes
per month since the age of nine. You were recommended for entry
level separation due to this diagnosis.
On 10 October 1991 you were notified that separation action was
being initiated by reason of defective enlistment and induction
due to erroneous enlistment, as evidenced by the diagnosis of
enuresis. You were advised of and waived all of your procedural
rights, with the exception of obtaining copies of documents
supporting the basis for the proposed separation. On 11 October
f TIG?. sf-,r;:ration w:, approved. On 16 Octclbor 1991 you receiv;!,i
an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of erroneous
entry, and you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment
code to an individual separated by reason of erroneous
enlistment. The Board found no evidence that the diagnosis of
enuresis was incorrect. Given the extensive history of prior
episodes, the continuance of this condition while at recruit
training, and your failure to complete recruit training, the
Board concluded that the assigned reenlistment code was proper
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 | CY2001 | 06647-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2001. 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. Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation by reason of erroneous entry due to the diagnosed personality disorder.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08550-01
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. The Board found no evidence that the diagnosis of bipolar disorder was inco~rect. 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 | 00705-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 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 | 08697-01
A three-member panel of the Board for CorrectLon of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. 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 | 06873-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2 0 0 2 . 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07879-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2002. You enlisted in the Navy on 9 June 1999 at age 17. 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 | 01638-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 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 | CY2002 | 01732-02
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, and the record of the two previous reviews of your application by the Board. In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion furnished by the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards dated 1 May 2002, a copy of which is attached. An SNMHAS record entry dated 12 August 1987 indicates...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00430-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. You claimed recurrent suicidal ideation since arriving at recruit training and stabbed yourself because "Nobody would listen to me...now they are listening."
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08181-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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. Since you have been treated no differently than others separated under similar circumstances, the Board could find no error or injustice in your...