DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CR5
Docket No: 633-03
27 February 2003
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 26 February 2003. Your
allegations of error and in)ustice 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 22 April 1999. The record
reflects that on 24 October 2000 you received nonjudicial punishment for an
unauthorized absence.
Although your record does not contain the separation processing documents,
it appears that the commanding officer recommended that you be separated
with a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct and, after review by the discharge authority, the recommendation
for separation was approved. The record clearly shows that on 27 October
2000 you received a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to a
pattern of misconduct. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code
of RE-4.
Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
when an individual is discharged by reason of 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.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service or
reason for separation should be changed, since you did not ask for such
consideration 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
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01088-03
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 2003. Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06344-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to misconduct. The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07989-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 2005. 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...
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 | CY2001 | 04199-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 CRS Docket No: 4199-01 21 June 2001 Dear This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 June 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01822-01
your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 The record reflects that you received two nonjudicial The offenses included an unauthorized absence of 18 dicharged with an other than honorable discharge by The names and since you did not ask for such Since you have been treated no differently than reenlistment code when an individual is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01914-01
recommendation, you elected to waive the right to present your case to an administrative discharge board. The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service should be changed, since you did not ask for such consideration and you have not exhausted your administrative remedy by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). 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 | 04143-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 June 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of misconduct. The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service should be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09809-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2002. When informed of the recommendation, you elected to On 29 September 2001 At that time, you The offenses included waive the right to present your case to an administrative After review by the discharge authority, the Since you have been treated no differently than the Board could not find an error or The names and Applicable regulations require the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02889-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 ~ p r i l 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. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 2 March 2002 you received a general discharge by...