Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00960-03
Original file (00960-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  F O R C O R R E C T I O N   O F N A V A L   RECORDS 

2  NAVY  ANNEX 

WASHINGTON  DC  2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

JRE 
Docket No:  960-03 
3 June 2003 

This is in reference to your request for correction of your naval record 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 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 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.  In  this connection, it substantially concurred with  the previous decisions of  the 
Board  in  your case of  13 April  1999, 13 February 2002, and  12 December 2002.  It was not 
persuaded that the misconduct which resulted in  your discharge was related to the effects of 
undiagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder.  In addition, it concluded that your  service was 
appropriately characterized with  an  undesirable discharge, and that there is no basis for 
upgrading that characterization.  Accordingly, 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 corrvtion of an  official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

W.  DEAN PFEPFFER 
Executive Director 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00183-03

    Original file (00183-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2003. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00787-03

    Original file (00787-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 July 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 | CY2002 | 02038-02

    Original file (02038-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 11 April 2002, a copy of which is attached. 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. In view of the above facts, there is no basis for expungement of his military record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06562-02

    Original file (06562-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    \ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 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. On 29 January 2002, the commanding officer recommended that you be honorably discharged by reason of your admission, and advised you of the right...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02090-03

    Original file (02090-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 5 March 2003, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02889-03

    Original file (02889-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10413-02

    Original file (10413-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2003. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4. The Board did not consider whether the characterization of service or reason for your 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 and Review Board (NDRB).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03271-03

    Original file (03271-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 13 October 1995 you were discharged with an other than honorable discharge. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your use of drugs. 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 | 01420-03

    Original file (01420-03.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 April 2003. 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. D.C. 20350-2000 I N R E P L Y R E F E R T O 5420 Nl3 OD1 / 03110236 26 Mar 2003 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS E CASE OF I Encl:...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02833-03

    Original file (02833-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2003. 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.