Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07564-01
Original file (07564-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

CRS
Docket No: 7564-01
15 February 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 13 February 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 Naval Reserve on 23
April 1996 at age 18.
You reported to active duty on 1 August
The record reflects that you received two nonjudicial
1996.
punishments.
days, absence from your appointed place of duty on two occasions,
and making a false official statement.
punishment you stated that you were homosexual.
On 8 April 1997 the commanding officer recommended that you be
separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and by reason
of homosexual conduct.
When informed of the recommendation, you
elected to waive the right to present your case to an
administrative discharge board.
authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and you
were discharged with an other than honorable discharge by reason
of misconduct on 20 April 1997.
At that time, you were assigned
a reenlistment code of RE-4.

The offenses included an unauthorized absence of  15
At the second nonjudicial

After review by the discharge

Since you have been treated no differently than

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
such as your youth and immaturity
potentially mitigating factors,
However, the Board concluded that
and good postservice conduct.
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge, given the two disciplinary actions during your
Therefore, the Board concluded that no
brief period of service.
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,
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
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.

the Board could not find an error or

The names and

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00625-98

    Original file (00625-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The psychiatrist found that you were On 10 January 1997 the ADB found that you had committed a pattern of misconduct and recommended a general discharge. You contend, in effect, The Board requested the nonjudicial punishment evidence from your The Board was aware that command, but no response was received. 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 | 00406-02

    Original file (00406-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2002. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07914-01

    Original file (07914-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 April 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 | CY2001 | 07215-01

    Original file (07215-01.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00784-02

    Original file (00784-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. 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 | 06006-01

    Original file (06006-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 noted that an RE-4 reenlistment code must be assigned to individuals who are...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 05796-04

    Original file (05796-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.You enlisted in the Navy on 19 September 1995 at age 17. Additionally, you were counseled and warned...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10775-09

    Original file (10775-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Feb 05 13_50_44 CST 2001

    My defense counsel did not question During the (ADB) I was upset that the (ADB) any witness and myself doing (sic) the (ADB) about (0’s) behavior. Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) make this guarantee applicable to an ADB respondent by stating that such an individual is entitled to “qualified counsel,” and defining that term as “counsel qualified under Article 27(b) of the UCMJ.” Articles 3640200.7 and 3620200.lv of the United States v. Marshall, 45 Strickland, at 687. Article...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08120-06

    Original file (08120-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.You enlisted in the Navy on 18 March 1996 at age 19. on 19 September 1996 and 1 May 1997 you received...