Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05617-02
Original file (05617-02.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   20370-5100 

CRS 
Docket No:  5617-02 
15 October 2003 

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 10 September 2003.  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 Naval Reserve on 17 
February 1982.  You reported to active duty on 19 February 1982. 
The record reflects that on 20 September 1984 you received 
nonjudjcjal punishment for an unauthorized absence of two days. 

On 24 November 1984 the commanding officer recommended that you 
be separated with a general discharge by  reason of secretarial 
authority due to financial irresponsibility and indebtedness. 
When informed of this recommendation, you elected to waive the 
right to submit a statement in response to the discharge action. 
On 10 January 1985 the Navy Personnel Command approved the 
recommendation and sent it to the Secretary of the Navy who 
directed discharge on 11 January 1985.  On 23 January 1985 you 
received a general discharge.  At  that time, you were assigned a 
reenlistment code of RE-4. 

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity 
and the contention that you were told that the discharge would be 

upgraded after six months.  However, the Board concluded that 
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization 
of your discharge, given your financial irresponsibility and 
indebtedness.  In this regard, no law or regulation provides for 
upgrading a discharge based solely on the passage of time. 
Therefore, the Board concluded that no change to the discharge is 
warranted. 

An individual may be separated by  reason of secretarial authority 
if separation is appropriate but no other reason covers the 
situation at hand.  Individuals separated for this reason may 
receive a reenlistment code of RE-4.  Since you were deemed to be 
financially irresponsible, the Board concluded that there is no 
error or injustice in your reenlistment code. 

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 
n  m 

W.  DEAN PFEIFF 

Executive Dire t k W'i 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07431-06

    Original file (07431-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your applicant, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.After careful nd conscientious consideration of the entire record, the B rd found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish t e existence of probable material error or injustice.You reenlisted in the Navy on 19 June 1981 after three years of honorable ser ce. On 21 March 1985 you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07447-01

    Original file (07447-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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. The Board found that a record which includes five nonjudicial punishments and the final adverse performance evaluation was sufficient to support the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01323-03

    Original file (01323-03.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 July 2003. However, on 3 October 1985 you were dropped from this counseling due to your non-amenability to treatment. 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 | CY2001 | 07253-01

    Original file (07253-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2002. However, on 18 January 1985, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to administratively reprocess you for separation by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and commission of a serious offense, and to afford you the right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 4 March 1985 an ADB recommended you be...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00338

    Original file (FD2005-00338.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Appeals for Honorable Discharge, and to Change the RE Code, Reason and Authority for Discharge. APPLICANT DATA (The person whose discharge is to be reviewed). TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED [X one) " ,, I CONDUCT A RECORD REVIEW OF MY DISCHARGE BASED ON MY MILITARY PERSONNEL FILE AND ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY ME.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07488-01

    Original file (07488-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2002. Your record reflects that on 21 August 1982 you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated until you were apprehended by civil authorities on 9 April 1985. 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 | 07508-02

    Original file (07508-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 May 2003. On 14 April 1983 you received NJP for breach of peace and assault and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to paygrade E-2, and a $250 forfeiture of pay. 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 | 06278-02

    Original file (06278-02.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 July 2003. The letter of 27 March 1986 that notified you that the request was denied stated that your "statements clearly demonstrate that your request for discharge (was) based on dissatisfaction with the naval service and not by reason of conscientious objector beliefs." Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06958-01

    Original file (06958-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 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. On 21 December 1983 your commanding officer recommended you be separated under okher than honorable conditions due to drug abuse.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10468-02

    Original file (10468-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2003. 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 review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 30 January 1985 you received an other than honorable...