Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02305-02
Original file (02305-02.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  

ELP 
Docket No.  2305-02 
12 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 Navy Records, 
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 
10 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 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 2 April  1986 for 
four years at age 18.  The record reflects that on 2 June 1986 
the Recruit Training Center  (RTC) advised the Commander, Naval 
Military Personnel Command  (CNMPC) , that you had failed to fully 
disclose your prior involvement with civil authorities.  This 
involvement included two months in a divisional youth program for 
a burglary and one year of unsupervised probation for a charge of 
accessory to stealing gasoline.  The commanding officer opined 
that further processing for discharge was not in the best 
interest of the naval service, and stated that you were being 
transferred to your next duty station upon completion of recruit 
training.  However, on 1 July 1986, CNMPC directed separation 
processing by reason of fraudulent enlistment. 

You reported for duty on board the USS DETROIT on 10 September 
1986 and were subsequently advanced to SA  (E-2).  On 25 December 
1986, CNMPC requested the status of the separation processing 

directed on 1 July 1986.  The CO of the DETROIT responded that 
when you reported on board the RTC letter of 2 June 1986 was 
noted in your service record, but the ship was unaware of NMPC1s 
directive to process you for separation.  The CO noted that you 
had been on unauthorized absence  (UA) since 18 December 1986. 

On 28 January 1987 you received nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) for 
three periods of UA totaling about 23 days, from 18 December 1976 
to 4 January 1987, 11-12 January and 19-25 January 1987; absence 
from your appointed place of duty; missing movement; and 
disobedience.  Punishment imposed consisted of a reduction in 
rate to SR  (E-1) , forfeitures of $350 per month for two months, 
and 45 days or restriction and extra duty.  On the same day, 
CNMPC directed that you be processed for separation by reason of 
defective enlistment due to fraudulent entry and misconduct as 
appropriate. 

On 11 February 1987 you were notified that administrative 
separation action was being initiated by reason of misconduct due 
to commission of a serious offense and fraudulent entry.  You 
were advised of your procedural rights and that if discharge was 
approved, it could be under other than honorable conditions.  You 
declined to consult with legal counsel and waived your right to 
an administrative discharge board  (ADB) .  Thereafter , the 
commanding officer recommended discharge under other than 
honorable conditions.  On 25 February 1987, CNMPC directed 
discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of 
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  You were so 
discharged on 3 March 1987. 

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity, 
limited education, and the fact that it has been more than 15 
years since you were discharged.  The Board noted the educational 
completion certificates, the college transcript, your pursuit of 
a career in law enforcement, and the letters of reference.  The 
Board also noted your contention that you cannot be commissioned 
a police officer with an other than honorable discharge, that 
during your youth you began running away from an abusive home and 
getting into trouble, and during this time the police officers 
you dealt with became very positive role models.  The Board 
concluded that foregoing factors and contention were insufficient 
to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your 
fraudulent enlistment and the NJP for three UAs totaling 23 days, 
missing movement, and disobedience.  The Board noted the aggra- 
vating factor that you waived an ADB,  the one opportunity you had 
to show why you should be retained or discharged under honorable 
conditions.  The fact that you desire to be a police officer and 
have passed all the qualifications for such employment does not 
provide a valid basis for recharacterizing your service.  The 

Board concluded that the discharge 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 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04812-02

    Original file (04812-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record changes in his characterization of service The Board, consisting'of Messrs. Zsalman, Pfeiffer, and Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, and reenlistment code. After reviewing the relevant evidence of record and new information concerning Petitioner's pre-service civil involvement, the Board believes that Petitioner was processed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00870-01

    Original file (00870-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    870-01 24 January 2002 Dear Mr.- 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. considered your application on Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 16 January 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 3...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06134-00

    Original file (06134-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 March 2001. * You were advanced to RM3 (E-4), extended your enlistment for an additional period of four months, and served without further incident until 15 March 1982, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for use of marijuana. Counsel also noted that the senior member of the ADB was not an 0-4 line officer.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08643-01

    Original file (08643-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2002. On 6 October 1977 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reasion of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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 | CY2012 | 05267-12

    Original file (05267-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2013. 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 elected to consult counsel and have your case heard before an administrative discharge board (ADB).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08767-98

    Original file (08767-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03282-09

    Original file (03282-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive seesion, considered your application on 17 February 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. On 24 March 1986, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09332-06

    Original file (09332-06.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or in] ustice.On 28 January 1983 you enlisted in the Navy at age 21. During the period from 21 February 1984 to 22...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06700-01

    Original file (06700-01.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. 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 | 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...