DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD
FOR
CORRECTION OF NAVAL
RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
WMP
Docket No:
4 September 2002
2443-02
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 28 August 2002.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies.
materi'al considered by the Board consisted
Your allegations of error and
Documentary
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 7 July 1999 for
four years at age 20.
The record reflects that on 31 July 2001
you submitted a request for separation due to conscientious
objection.
On 13 August 2001, you were advised of your rights concerning a
conscientious objector hearing and elected to personally appear
before the hearing, to submit additional evidence, to question
any witnesses who may appear,
and to examine all items in your
file.
On 16 August 2001, an investigation concerning your request for
separation was completed.
The investigation essentially found
that your
recommended that your application be denied.
religious"beliefs were not "deeply held," and
On 21 August 2001,
you forwarded a rebuttal to the investigation report to the
commanding officer.
On 30 August 2001 the commanding officer forwarded your request
for separation, recommending disapproval, to the Navy Personnel
Command
separation and on 2 November 2001,
of conscientious objection,
code.
However, NPC approved your request for
and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment
you were discharged by reason
(NPC) .
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and
immaturity and your contention that you are no longer a
conscientious objector.
However, the Board concluded that the
reenlistment code was assigned based on your statement that you
were a conscientious objector and your specific request for
discharge from the Naval service.
reenlistment code is authorized when an individual is separated
by reason of conscientious objection.
treated no differently than other personnel in the same
circumstances.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
Additionally, an RE-4
Therefore, you were
’
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board.
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.
it is important to keep in mind that
You are entitled to have
In this regard,
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03918-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 23 January 1992 the commanding officer forwarded your request for separation, Personnel (CNP) who approved your request and on 31 March 1992, you were discharged by reason of conscientious objection, and assigned an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07044-07
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.You enlisted in the Navy on 12 August 1976 at age 18. On 21 December 1978, during an interview...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10250-02
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. Accordingly, on 13 November 2001, the discharge authority disapproved your request for retention in a noncombatant status but directed an honorable discharge by reason of "conscientious objectorn. It is clear from the regulations that the Navy Personnel Command was authorized to direct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05168-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 February 2011. 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. However, the Board found these factors were insufficient to warrant changing your narrative reason for separation, or reentry code due to...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500797
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service/Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From/To Representation: From/To Congress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Based on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02160-08
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. Concerning your request for a change in the reenlistment code, the Board was aware that an RE-4 reenlisted code is the only authorized code when an individual is discharged because they are a conscientious objector. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2004-015
This final decision, dated June 30, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked that his military record be corrected by removing conscientious objector as the reason for his discharge. On March 16, 1981, the applicant submitted a letter to his officer-in-charge (OIC) requesting to be discharged as a conscientious objector to military service.2 He stated that he was conscientiously opposed to participation in combatant or noncombatant military...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02398-01
You were so discharged on 21 August 1987 and You did not The Board noted your contention that you have no Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals discharged by reason of erroneous enlistment. However, the Board concluded that failure to disclose a civil conviction for rape provided sufficient justification to warrant a non-recommendation for reenlistment and assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608600C070209
Army Regulation 600-43, in effect at the time of the applicants discharge and currently in effect, provides that, when discharged because of conscientious objection, Army Regulation 600-43 will be entered as the separation authority and RE-4 will be entered as the reentry code on the applicants DD Form 214. Effective 2 October 1989, the regulation was changed indicating that Army Regulation 601-210 determines RE and regulates the assignment of the RE code; that reentry codes are not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014750
Counsel argues that West Point violated Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2005 by not hearing evidence from the applicant during the recoupment investigation and that the applicant should not be required to repay the cost of his education because of his status as a conscientious objector. In a memorandum, dated 24 May 1999, the applicant documented pertinent information surrounding his request to acquire conscientious objector status. On 17 November 1999, the Superintendent recommended that the...