DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
ELP
Docket No. 6065-00
9 February 2001
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 for the Board for Correction of Navy
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 9 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 Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 5 January 2000
for four years as an SN (E-3).
prepared prior to your enlistment shows that you answered
"NO"
to all questions relating to whether you had a police record for
any felony or alcohol and drug offenses, and if there were'any
charges pending against you.
A security clearance application
The record reflects that arrest warrants had been
On 14 February 2000 you were notified that discharge was being
considered by reason of defective enlistment and induction
due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by pre-service civil
involvement.
issued on 20 January 2000 requiring you to answer charges for
obtaining money under false pretenses,
and forging a check in the amount of $150.
scheduled for both warrants on 23 February 2000.
advised of your procedural rights.
counsel , you declined to submit a statement in own behalf and
waived the right to have your case reviewed by the general
After consulting with legal
court-
valued at less than $200;
A hearing date was
You were
martial convening authority.
directed an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of
erroneous enlistment.
2000.
You were so discharged on 16 February
Thereafter, the discharge authority
Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to an individual separated by reason of erroneous enlistment.
The Board noted your contentions to the effect that you and your
recruiter went to the "court-house to check for warrants."
background and warrant checks came back negative.
--
you were not convicted of the charges.
Both
You claim that
A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report obtained by the
Board shows you were charged with obtaining money by false
pretenses and two charges of forging/uttering.
you apparently appeared in court and pled guilty to the false
pretense charge and the remaining charges were not prosecuted.
Whether you received a sentence for the charge to which you pled
guilty could not be determined from the report. In view of the
FBI report, the Board believes you have been less than truthful
in your application.
discover the procedures for correcting its records if the report
is in error.
reenlistment code is 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.
The Board thus concluded that the assigned
You should contact the FBI in order to
On 22 March 2000,
It is regretted that the circumstances of
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.
your.case are such that
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07154-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2002. Given your concealment of your preservice arrest Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is separation because of a fraudulent enlistment. 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.
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902349
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant should be aware submission of these items alone does not guarantee clemency as each discharge is reviewed by the NDRB on a case-by-case basis.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD...
USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00173
Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Two months prior to the Special Court-Martial, while in Yuma, the applicant was found guilty of writing 29 worthless checks. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501545
Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character Reference ltr from T_ T. C_ (Applicant), undated, not signedNational Personnel Records Check for Applicant, dtd November 4, 2005 Ltr form National Personnel Records Center, dtd February 13, 2006 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active:...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017713
Also in accordance with the 697th IMA Dets activation, the orders specified: a. unit members were to administratively train as Army Reservists 1 weekend per month to fulfill requirements to support SOCSOUTH with administrative support personnel; b. unit members would train for retirement points, not military pay; c. the unit would not be authorized a property book or permitted to acquire property; d. the unit would not be authorized weapons; and e. the unit would not be authorized to issue...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02889
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of injustice regarding the applicant’s request that her general discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 16 February 1993, she was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate. ...
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01471
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Age at Entry: 17 (Parental Consent) Years Contracted: 6 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 79 Highest Rank: LCpl MOS: 1141 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Proficiency: 3.6 (9) Conduct: 2.9 (10) Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC Days of Unauthorized Absence: 248 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00699
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 870424 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court-martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed by appellate review authority and executed (A and B). After a thorough review of applicant’s service record, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600568
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. [Extracted from Evaluation Report & Counseling Record, dtd 970509 to 980213]. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01248
ND03-01248 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030717. Reason being, I knew I was innocent and clueless that the crime had even had even taken place, until I was questioned by SA F_. Since, I was in the Navy the Army had to transfer the case over to the Navy for a trial.