DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 5980-00
26 February 2001
--
.
.
.
__.
Dear
This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the
States Code, Section 1552.
application for correction of your
provisions of Title 10, United
Board for Correction of Navy
A three-member panel for the
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 22 February 2001.
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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The record reflects that you were
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 17 September
1991 for four years at age 17.
advanced to OSSN (E-3) and served without incident until
13 January 1994 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for a violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, specifically,
Punishment imposed
consisted of a suspended reduction in rate to OSSA (E-2), a
forfeiture of $466, and 30 days of restriction and extra duty.
Further facts and circumstances surrounding this NJP are not on
file in the record.
However, you were subsequently advanced to
OS3 (E-4).
"false pretenses."
On 7 March 1995 you were convicted by special court-martial of
carnal knowledge.
labor for three months, forfeitures of $500 per month for three
months, and reduction in rate to OSSN (E-3).
You were released
from the brig and restored to full duty on 15 April 1995.
You were sentenced to confinement at hard
On 13 November 1995 you were honorably released from active duty,
transferred to the Naval Reserve, and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals who have a special court-martial conviction within
the year preceding the expiration of enlistment.
your contention that the charge of rape was dropped and you were
returned to full duty.
dropped, the record indicates that you were convicted of a lesser
included charge of carnal knowledge.
the reenlistment code 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.
While a charge of rape may have been
The Board noted
The Board concluded that
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
2
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01395
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant further contends that not enough evidence was provided at his admin discharge board to support his discharge and resulting characterization. The evidence of the Applicant’s three NJPs as well as his guilty plea in civilian court on charges of carnal knowledge was enough for the admin discharge board to reasonably conclude that the Applicant had committed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05958-01
Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 18 December 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 3 February 1996 you were You were Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals who are not recommended for reenlistment or who fail to meet the professional growth criteria for...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03674
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03674 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He has been married for 11 years and has four children. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) directed that any forfeitures collected prior to the convening authority taking action, and any pay and allowances withheld...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02365-07
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.On 8 February 1985, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 27 after a prior period of honorable service. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02365-07
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.On 8 February 1985, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 27 after a prior period of honorable service. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7480 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 June 2015. 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. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of another court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07835-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2002. The Board believed that a record which included three nonjudicial punishments and a conviction by a special court-martial was sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. In addition, regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals serving in pay grade E-2 on completion of an extended period of...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501325
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:Secretary of the Navy Council...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00988
ND03-00988 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030527. According to S_’s statement, my statement, and the memorandum that was given to the defense counsel at that time,should prove that S_ was at least 12yrs of age and that I had reason to believe that she and her friends were 16yrs of age or older. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500938
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: “Poor legal representation & lack of speedy trial.” Documentation Only the service record was were reviewed. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were insufficient to merit clemency (C).