Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 03953-04
Original file (03953-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 TJR
 Docket No: 3953-04
17 August 2004


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 10 August 2004. 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 ca eful and conscientious ~x~nside ation of th~ entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material erro- or iniust Ice
On 9 January 2001, prio to enlis ing in the Navy, you completed a security application in which you indicated that you did not have any unpaid judgments, financial delinquencies, or pending criminal charges. However, on 7 February 2001, a credit report stated that you had several pending financial delinquencies, bad debts, and unpaid judgments. Further, a background investigation report stated that you had pre-service civil involvement.
You enlisted in the Navy on 19 March 2001 at age 28 and served without disciplinary incident. On 5 November 2001, as a result of a security clearance investigation, you were notified of pending action to deny you a security clearance because of disqualifying information, specifically, unpaid judgments, financial delinquencies, and pre-service criminal charges.
On 26 March 2003 you submitted a written statement in which you explained in detail your attempts to rectify the discrepancies of the disqualifying information. You also stated that you were unaware of some of the discrepancies and disputed several of the entries.
Subsequently, on 16 May 2003, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of fraudulent enlistment due to your failure to disclose adverse financial information and pre-service civil involvement. On 2 June 2003, after consulting with legal counsel, you submitted a written statement explaining how you had attempted to rectify the adverse financial discrepancies and requested a waiver of the fraudulent enlistment so that you could remain in the Navy. However, on 10 June 2003, your commanding officer recommended an honorable discharge by reason of defective entry/induction due to fraudulent enlistment. This recommendation also stated in part, as follows:
Strongly recommend administrative separation.... (Member) has encountered personal issues requiring extensive leave, thus being absent from work..., waiver of fraudulent enlistment not in the best interest of the Navy..., based on service record review, recommend honorable discharge.
On 25 June 2003 the discharge authority then directed an honorable discharge by reason of fraudulent entry, and on 1 August 2003 you were so discharged and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your assertion that the assigned RE-4 reenlistment code is not representative of your honorable characterization of service and therefore should be changed. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code. Such a code is required when an individual is separated by reason of fraudulent entry. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
The Board did not consider whether the reason for your separation should be changed because you did not request such action and have no exhausted your administrative remedies by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). You may apply to NDRB by submitting the attached DD Form 293.
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.












3

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09247-06

    Original file (09247-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 thq entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02646-06

    Original file (02646-06.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.Prior to your enlistment you signed official documents in which you stated, in part, that you were not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10663-09

    Original file (10663-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ‘ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2010. On 5 March 2004, you were notified that the Defense Security Service (DSS) investigation had denied you a security clearance. .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 | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00812

    Original file (ND04-00812.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00812 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040419. Applicant requests assignment to PN rating.030311: DONCAF Letter, preliminary decision made to deny Applicant a security clearance based on personal conduct; financial considerations, and personal conduct; criminal conduct.030516: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of general (under honorable conditions by reason of defective...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03183-07

    Original file (03183-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2009. 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 24 January 2003, the Department of the Navy, Central Adjudication Facility (DON CAF) informed you via your commanding officer (CO), of their...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700241

    Original file (ND0700241.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PERSONAL CONDUCT; FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION : 20010301: Your Credit Bureau Report disclosed the following: * ALLTEL charged off $428.00 in July 1997. Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20021108 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): N/A (LOCAL SEPARATION) Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, NAVAL HOSPTIAL, GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010756

    Original file (20070010756.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Chief, Investigations Division (ID), United States Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility, notified the applicant on 8 January 2002, of his intent to revoke his security clearance. The rater stated once he was assigned and mobilized on 8 December 2001, the USJFCOM initiated the security management process and that the United States Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility announced their intent to revoke his security clearance on 8 January 2002. His records show...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011882

    Original file (20070011882.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The counsel states, in effect, that the U. S. Army Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) abused its discretion when it denied the applicant's request for reinstatement of his suspended security clearance. The counsel provides the following documents in support of the applicant's request: a. a letter addressed to the applicant from the US Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility, dated 27 December 1995, subject: Intent to Revoke Security Clearance; b. a second endorsement...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600096

    Original file (ND0600096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00096 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050922. I went back to work on the April 18 th 2005 and was told that I was being separated from the Navy and only had 6 weeks. “I believe that the US Navy did a dis-service when discharging me.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600212

    Original file (ND0600212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ]050321: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistments and inductions – fraudulent entry into naval service.050321: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to obtain copies of the documents used to...