DEPARTMENT OF THE N VY t
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVYANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 324-03
18 August 2003
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval re'cord 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 30 July 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
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 17 December
2001. The record reflects that you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) on 27 March 2002 for making a false official
statement. In an Administrative Caunseling/~arning (page % Z ) of
that same date, you were advised that you were being retained in
the service, but warned that further misconduct would result in
administrative separation. However, on 6 June 2002 you received
NJP for a 29 day period of unauthorized absence, from 28 March to
26 April 2002.
On 11 July 2002 the commanding officer recommended that you be
separated with a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to
a pattern of mi'sconduct. When informed of this recommendation,
you elected to waive the right to submit a statement in response
to the discharge action. After review by the discharge
authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on
24 July 2002 you received a general discharge by reason of
misconduct. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code
of RE-4.
An advisory opinion from the Navy Personnel Command dated 26
March 2003, stated that your claim of forged signatures on the 27
March 2002 page 13 counseling and warning entry could not be
confirmed. Further, the opinion noted $hat even if the
signatures were forged, you could have still been discharged by
reason of commission of a serious offense, due to the false
official statement which does not require a page 13 entry.
C
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity
and all of the contentions you made in the attachment to your
application and the rebuttal to the advisory opinion. However,
the Board concluded that these factors and contentions were not
sufficient to warrant reinstatement or recharacterization of your
discharge, given your disciplinary actions.
Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to
misconduct. Since you have been treated no differently than
others in your situation, the Board could not find an error or
injustice in the assignment of your reenlistment code.
~ccordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06890-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The following day, your counsel responded that any Your counsel On 23 February 1998, the secretarial designee directed that your records be corrected to show that you were involuntarily discharged on 13 December 1995 by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05385-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 January 2008. On 28 October 1999, suspended punishment from the NJP was vacated due to unspecified misconduct. On 7 May 2003, you were separated with an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500550
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Not appealed.040310: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.040414: Applicant advised of rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.040420: Commanding Officer, H&S...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301694
Relief denied.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 and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00271
(Equity Issue) This former member opines that his post-service conduct has been sufficiently creditable to warrant the Board’s clemency relief as authorized under provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 9.3. In my opinion he has no potential for future active honorable naval service; therefore, I recommend separation from the naval service with a Discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions by reason of misconduct. After a complete review of the entire record,...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500089
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of his characterization of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12236-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 2010. On 30 November 2002 you were discharged by reason of misconduct with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and assigned a reentry code of RE-4. 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 | CY2007 | 02327-07
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.On 28 November 2000, you enlisted in the Navy at age 20. On 27 January 2004, you were so discharged...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06721-07
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 31 May 2001 at age 18. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501075
J_ L. H_ Jr. (Applicant)” Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency i.e. NJP on 15 Aug 2001, for violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (communicating a threat), and NJP 09 May 2001, for violations of UCMJ Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order), Article 107 (false official statement), and Article 134 (false pass), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.020729: Applicant notified of intended...