Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02764-02
Original file (02764-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

TJR
Docket No: 2764-02
27 November 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 26 November 2002.
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.

Your allegations of error and

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 Naval Reserve on 29 October 1979 at the age
of 18.
You served without disciplinary incident until 5 March
1981 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two
specifications of misbehavior as a sentinel and destruction of
military property.
of pay and bread and water for three days, which was suspended
for 30 days.
identification card and were awarded a $50 forfeiture of pay and
restriction and extra duty for seven days.

On 9 April 1981 you received NJP for losing an

The punishment imposed was a $100 forfeiture

On 22 January 1982 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of convenience of the government due
to creating an administrative burden as evidenced by minor
military or disciplinary infractions.
your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case
to an administrative discharge board.
commanding officer recommended separation by reason of burden to
command due to substandard performance and inability to adapt.
This recommendation was approved and the discharge authority
directed an honorable discharge by reason of substandard

At that time you waived

Subsequently, your

performance and an inability to adapt.
so discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

On 5 March 1982 you were

RE-2 reenlistment code because of your honorable

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors,
immaturity and your contention that you should have received an
RE-1 or 
discharge.
contention were not sufficient to warrant a change in your
reenlistment code because of your separation by reason of burden
to command and the two  
individuals separated due to burden to command.
your application has been denied.

Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors and

such as your youth and

NJPs.

Such a code was required for

Accordingly,

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
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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 | CY1999 | 00159-99

    Original file (00159-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    in your record. Regulations required the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals discharged command due to substandard performance or by reason of inability to adapt to military service." The Board noted that you have applied for the Navy The Board also noted that the commanding and that your contention that You contend that you NJPs in only 16 months of service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05643-09

    Original file (05643-09.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. On 24 October 1981, you received NUP for a second failure to obey a lawful order. 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 | CY2006 | 03912-06

    Original file (03912-06.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 injustice.You enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 13 January 1982 at age 19. The punishment imposed was a $200...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 13_04_27 CST 2001

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 11_59_57 CST 2001

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00014-09

    Original file (00014-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2009. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11208-07

    Original file (11208-07.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 injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 24 April 1982 at age 18 and began a period of active duty on 27 April 1982...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00601-05

    Original file (00601-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2005. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00100-03

    Original file (00100-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 23 Plpril 1981 you were referred for a psychiatric evaluation because of your suicidal fantasy. 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 | CY2006 | 00768-06

    Original file (00768-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 2006. 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...