DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
Y
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
JRE
Docket No: 4464-01
26 February 2002
Dear
This is in reference to your application for correction of your son’s 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 14 February 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
son’s 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 son enlisted in the Navy on 24 March 1997. It appears that his
enlistment was fraudulent, in that he concealed a history of arrests for theft, assault on a
police officer, escape from custody, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, failure to appear, and
underage possession of ‘an alcoholic beverage. The fraud was discovered shortly after he
enlisted, but naval authorities opted to allow him to remain in the Navy, based on his good
conduct and performance prior to the time that determination was made. He was discharged
by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense on 6 March 1998. The discharge
was based on his attempting to provoke a confrontation with his supervisor, repeatedly
striking the supervisor with his fists, and attacking the supervisor again after being pulled off
of him.
poor work effort.
In addition, his commanding officer noted that he had an attitude problem and a
In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that your son was not responsible for the acts
which resulted in his discharge, or establishes that his discharge was erroneous or unjust, the
Board was unable to recommend any corrective action. It could not find any indication in
the available records that he was unfit for duty by reason of physical disability at that time.
reason of misconduct takes precedence over disability
The Board noted that as a discharge by
processing, he would not have been entitled to separation or retirement by reason of physical
disability even if he had been unfit for duty.
In view of the foregoing, 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 | CY2002 | 07565-02
Documentary material considered by the Board Your allegations of error and 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 underwent a pre-enlistment physical examination on 19 July 2000. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01651-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 October 2008. The Board noted that while the Laird Memorandum provided that administrative discharges under other than honorable conditions issued solely on the basis of personal use of drugs or possession of drugs for the purpose of such use would be reviewed for recharacterization, it did not require the recharacterization of each discharge reviewed under that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08100-07
08100-0722 October 2007This is in reference to your application for correction of your son’s 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 12 October 2007. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your son’s naval record and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07751-07
You were sentenced to be discharged from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge. You were separated from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge on 24 February 1971, upon completion of appellate review. 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 | CY2003 | 03029-03
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted Your allegations of error and 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. It noted that even if you had been unfit, you would not have It was been entitled to disability evaluation processing, because a discharge by reason of misconduct take precedence over In the absence of evidence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06402-05
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 served on active duty in the Marine Corps as an enlisted member from 27...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03617-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting session, considered your application on 15 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. PHYSICAL BECAUSE OF DISABILITY. AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND BASED ON UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE HEARING PANEL, THE PHYSICAL EVALUATION BOARD FINDS THE MEMBER UNFIT FOR FULL DUTY IN THE U.S....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05262-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2002. demonstrates that your discharge by reason of misconduct was improper, and establishes that you were unfit to perform your duties by reason of a physical disability which was incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of naval service, the Board was unable to recommend In the absence of evidence which any corrective action in your case. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07634-05
Documentary mate jail 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 3 June 1974. Unlike the VA, the military...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04012-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The PEB made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability incurred as a result of your own misconduct, and therefore not ratable. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...