DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FORCORRECTION OF NAVALRECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 6026-02
17 December 2002
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 December 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy for four years on 14 September 1993.
Subsequently, you were processed for separation by reason of
convenience of the government due to
\\pregnancy or childbirth."
The documentation to support this processing is not filed in your
You were released from active duty on 4 January
service record.
1995 with your service characterized as honorable.
separation code entered on your DD Form 214 indicates that your
separation was voluntary.
year, 3 months and 21 days of active service.
At that time, you had completed 1
The
At the time of your enlistment, you elected to participate in the
Montgomery G. I. Bill (MGIB) and you subsequently made the
required nonrefundable $1,200 deposit. In order to be eligible
for benefits, an individual discharged for the convenience of the
government must complete 30 continuous months of active service.
The one exception to this requirement is that an individual is
entitled to payments for the number of months served if the
separation is considered to be involuntary.
As indicated, the discharge processing documentation is
unavailable and it cannot be determined if your separation was
voluntary or involuntary.
contrary, the Board concluded that you were voluntarily
discharged for the convenience of the government.
Given the absence of evidence to the
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and
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
Executive Director
PFEIFFER
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01630-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. your application, thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. You were given the options of Subsequently, based on your On 3 April 1957 You submitted your On 10 January 2002 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02990-04
After your discharge, you were rated as 10% disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs.In your application you are requesting that the SPD code be changed to “JDG”, which will indicate that you were discharged by reason of parenthood or custody of minor children and your discharge was involuntary. Further, there is no evidence that a discharge by reason of physical disability was warranted. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02003-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2008. 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04817-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2010. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11034-07
+ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Records, sitting in executive session, considered application on 13 November 2008. tion of your of the United Naval our Your allegations |jof error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceédings 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02736-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2010. 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03822-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2009. 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. Regulations direct assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to members who are not recommended for retention or are discharged because of alcohol...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04317-08
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. The Board considered your contention that you were never diagnosed as having a personality disorder and that you do not know why you were discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08875-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 2008. 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 | CY2014 | NR3420 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2014. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this 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 or injustice.