Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09632-02
Original file (09632-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   FOR  C O R R E C T I O N   O F  N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y   ANNEX 

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

WMP 
Docket No:  9632-02 
8 May 2003 

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 o$ the Board for Correction of Naval 
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 7 May 2003.  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 thedeof, 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 26 May 2000 for 
four years at age 18.  Your record further shows that you served 
without incident until 13 December 2000, when you received 
nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) for obtaining services under false 
pretenses.  The punishment imposed was forfeitures $537 per 
month for two months and 45 days of restriction and extra duty. 

Your record further reflects that you received an adverse 
performance evaluation for the period of 23 September to 13 
December 2000.  In this evaluation, you received adverse marks 
of 2.0 in the marking categories of professional knowledge and 
quality of work; and 1.0 in the marking categories of equal 
opportunity, military bearing/character, and personal 
accomplishment/initiative.  You were not re~ommen~ded for 

retention and your advancement recommendation indicated 
"significant problems." 

On 14 December 2000 you received a psychological evaluation due 
to suicidal ideation and were diagnosed as having an adjustment 
disorder with an angry and sad mood, and an immature, anti- 
social and passive-aggressive personality disorder.  It was 
recommended you be expeditiously processed for separation due to 
the risk you posed to yourself and others if retained.  You also 
admitted to an undisclosed pre-service diagnosis and treatment 
for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and nephritic 
syndrome. 

Although the documents concerning your separation processing are 
not contained in your records, it is clear that you were 
processed for separation by reason of fraudulent entry due to 
your failure to disclose pre-service medical treatment and 
diagnosed personality disorder.  The record clearly shows that 
on 1 March 2001 you received a general discharge by reason of 
fraudulent entry and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 

Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code 
to an individual separated by reason of fraudulent entry.  In 
the regard, the Board noted that you apparently failed to 
disclose your pre-service medical treatment for attention 
deficit hyperactivity disorder and nephritic syndrome, both of 
which, if disclosed prior to enlistment, would have disqualified 
you for military service.  Accordingly, your application has 
been denied.  The names and votes of the members of the panel 
will be furnished. 

The Board did not consider whether your characterization of 
~ ~ r v . i c e  or reasnn for separation shn111.d be changed, si.nrle y m ~ .  
did not request such action, and you have not exhausted your 
administrative remedy by applying to the Naval Discharge Review 
Board  (NDRB).  You may apply to NDRB by submitting the attached 
DD Form 293. 

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 

Enclosure: 

DD Form 293 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500437

    Original file (ND0500437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AXIS III: Medical conditions: No serious medical conditions are noted at this time. AXIS III: Medical conditions: No serious medical conditions are noted at this time. Accordingly, I have separated AA N _(Applicant) from the Navy and characterized her service under General Conditions.” 030905: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of fraudulent enlistment into the naval service, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-134.Service Record...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05014-02

    Original file (05014-02.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 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this materi'al considered by the Board consisted Board. Based on these findings and your and a personality disorder with Additionally, you revealed The On 6 July 1999 you were notified that separation action was being initiated for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00420

    Original file (ND00-00420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00420 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000215, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980929 with an Uncharacterized service (entry level separation) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900896

    Original file (ND0900896.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant is seeking a change in his reentry (RE)code and characterization of service to get a better job.2. Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY.Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01638-02

    Original file (01638-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 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 | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500781

    Original file (ND0500781.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By regulation, members notified of the intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are eligible for an uncharacterized or entry-level separation characterization of service. The Applicant's service record does not contain documentation which warrants a change in the characterization of service to honorable. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00514-02

    Original file (00514-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 2002. You were so discharged on 24 April 2000. Reglations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individual separated by reason erroneous enlistment.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7013 13

    Original file (NR7013 13.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 August 2014. 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 | 03488-10

    Original file (03488-10.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 polieles. Further, the Board concluded that the diagnosed ADHD and nonrecommendation ‘for retention gr reenlistment were sufficient to support the ‘assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code, which is authorized by ‘regulatory guidance. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700173

    Original file (ND0700173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issue 2 (): The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and/or the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214...