Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08525-05
Original file (08525-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
         WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100        

                 
CRS
Docket No: 8525-05
27 February 2007





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 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2007. 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 11 April 2002 after 13 years of prior active service. You then served for about two years without incident.

The record reflects that on 1 February 2005, charges of molesting your four year old daughter were substantiated by a Navy case review committee (CRC). The CRC also substantiated allegations that you allowed your daughter and older son to witness you and your girlfriend engaging in sex acts. Subsequently, on 10 August 2005 you were honorably discharged by reason of expiration of term of service. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.

Applicable regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is separated at the expiration of enlistment, and is routinely assigned if a service member is involved in child sexual abuse. In this regard, the Board concluded that based on the evidence in the record, the CRC properly substantiated the allegations of abuse. 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.

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 PFIEFFER
                                                               Executive Director                                                   

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07195-07

    Original file (07195-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The author of the 6 December 2007 opinion, an assistant legal counsel to the Commander, NPC, advised the Board that since there is no evidence in your application or the documents submitted in Support thereof that you “ever voluntarily requested transfer to the Fleet Reserve”, you should submit your “voluntarily request” to the NPC for action in accordance with the provisions of the Navy Military Personnel Manual article 1910-166, which applies to requests for transfer to the Fleet Reserve...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02174-06

    Original file (02174-06.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. Per paragraph 3004.2c(9) of reference (b), a DC report is required upon, “Substantiated findings of level three, four, or five domestic violence cases ... and after affording the MRO due process a determination by the commanding officer that the MRO is culpable.” In this case, the Board found...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00462-08

    Original file (00462-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2008. 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. Although your last performance evaluation is not filed in your record, the Board believed that the diagnosis of dependency and your refusal of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500462

    Original file (ND0500462.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    T he decision was four-to-one that the character and the narrative reason for discharge shall change, the Board voted three-to-two that the characterization should be general (under honorable conditions). After a thorough review of the records, the Board determined that the testimony of the 15-year-old neighbor, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigations, the DNA tests, and the Family Advocacy Case Review Committee (FA CRC) proceedings, all of which were presented to the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09114-08

    Original file (09114-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 7 May 2008, Applicant submitted a request to the Board of Corrections of Naval Records (BCNR) to have his fitness report removed on the grounds that he was not afforded the opportunity to present his case to the CRC or defend himself with legal counsel. The rebuttal to the report was the petitioner’s best...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02365-07

    Original file (02365-07.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.On 8 February 1985, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 27 after a prior period of honorable service. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02365-07

    Original file (02365-07.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.On 8 February 1985, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 27 after a prior period of honorable service. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071093C070402

    Original file (2002071093C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In January 2001, the applicant filed a complaint with SWS and the German court charging his wife with child sexual abuse. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded: The Board notes the applicant's recounting of the emotional abuse allegations leveled against him and his response to those allegations found in Folder 4 of his...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08030-06

    Original file (08030-06.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.You enlisted in the Navy on 29 October 2001 at age 20. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000405

    Original file (ND1000405.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20020531 - 20021111Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20021112Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20060908Highest Rank/Rate:MA3Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)27 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 52EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.5(4)Behavior:2.7(4)OTA: 3.14Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Pistol...