DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC
20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 6288-02
15 November 2002
Your allegations of error and
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 of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 6 November 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.
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 February 1987
The record reflects that you received three
at age 19.
nonjudicial punishments and were convicted by a summary
martial.
165 days and failure to obey a lawful order.
On 14 August 1990 an administrative discharge board recommended
that you be separated with a general discharge by reason of
After review
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was
approved and on 9 November 1990 you received a general discharge
by reason of misconduct.
reenlistment code of RE-4.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors,
the Board concluded that these factors were
immaturity.
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge,
given your disciplinary record for lengthy periods of
court-
The offenses included unauthorized absences totalling
At that time, you were assigned a
However,
such as your youth and
Therefore, the Board concluded that no
The names and
Since you have been treated no differently than
unauthorized absence.
change to the discharge is warranted.
Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to
misconduct.
others in your situation, the Board could not find an error or
injustice in the assignment of your reenlistment code.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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 | 05204-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 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 and applicable statutes, regulations and Your allegations of error and After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07928-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Ss sitting in executive session, considered your on on 11 May 2010. On 12 September 1990, the ADB met and unanimously found that you committed a serious offense, failed alcohol rehabilitation, and recommended that you be separated with a general discharge. 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 | 07504-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 March 2002. 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. 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 | CY2002 | 02183-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2002. of misconduct reenlistment code was denied based on your record and because you were serving in pay grade However, your request for a change in the E-2 after four years of Your record has been corrected to show an active service. YOU are now requesting that the record be corrected to show that you were not reduced in rate to pay grade E-2 one of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01549-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 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. 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 | 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 | BCNR | CY2001 | 02132-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 July 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01676-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 CRS Docket No: 1676-01 15 January 2002 Your allegations of error and Dear 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 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 January 2002. injustice were reviewed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04111-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged due to misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 10095-04
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 2005. Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to misconduct. 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.