Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04816-06
Original file (04816-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O370- 5I00


                                    TRG
         Docket No: 4816-06
         31 October 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-me mb er panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 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.
You enlisted in the Navy on 6 November 2003 at age 19. On 25 November 2004 and 31 January 2005, you received nonjudicial punishments. Your offenses were underage drinking, dereliction of duty, false official statement, theft of a wood baton, three instances of disobedience, use and possession of marijuana, 13 absences from restriction musters and assault.
Based on the foregoing record, you were processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct. An administrative discharge board (ADB) met on 12 July 2005 and found that you had committed misconduct, but recommended a suspended general discharge.
On 6 January 2006, your commanding officer forwarded a letter from the senior member of the ADB to the Navy Personnel Command (NPC). He pointed out that he was surprised when the ADB recommended a suspended general discharge since your misconduct warranted a discharge under other than honorable conditions. However, he stated that he had observed your excellent conduct and performance since the ADB and had concluded that you now warranted retention in the Navy. After review, NPC disagreed with this recommendation and directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct. You were so discharged on 8 February 2006. At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
 You contend in your application, in effect, that you should have been retained in the Navy since the ADB and your commanding officer recommended retention to complete your probationary period. However, it is clear that NPC had the authority to direct discharge. Given your record of misconduct you were fortunate to have been issued a general discharge.
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 the RE-4 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 PFEIFFER
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 | 09936-06

    Original file (09936-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 2007. On 18 July 2006 the NPC advised your command that ASN had approved the recommendation. 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 | CY2005 | 08967-05

    Original file (08967-05.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his endorsement on your appeal CSG2 analyzed the evidence concerning the charge of indecent assault and stated that he believed a preponderance of the evidence supported his finding of guilty. He conceded that the evaluation at issue was erroneously prepared and indicated that action would be taken to file a corrected evaluation but strongly recommended that your application for advancement to chief petty officer be denied. The opinion concluded by stating that given the no misconduct...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08000-08

    Original file (08000-08.pdf) 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. On 22 November 2005 an ADB recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of convenience of the government due to alcohol rehabilitation failure. On 2 February 2006 you were so discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11133-07

    Original file (11133-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Record of the ADB proceedings show that evidence considered included Petitioner’s hair drug test results and deficiency reports for the drug screening. In this regard, the Board finds that the documented deficiencies and errors in the testing of samples that occurred at the Navy Drug Laboratory and the error that occurred by the command’s urinalysis coordinator were sufficient to invalidate it. That Petitioner’s naval record be further corrected by removing the administrative separation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10141-09

    Original file (10141-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 June 2010. 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 12 February 2007, you were notified of pending administrative discharge processing under honorable conditions due to misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00546-10

    Original file (00546-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 2010. However, the SARP at Corpus Christi Hospital and your command Drug and Alcohol Program Assistant (DAPA) Ggtermined that you were an alcohol rehabilitation failure and it was recommended that you be separated for not complying with the Peonmended treatment. On 27 February 2008, your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11143-09

    Original file (11143-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code should not be changed, your pay grade of E-4 should not be reinstated, nor should your security clearance revocation documentation be removed because of your substandard performance and misconduct. The Board concluded that you were fortunate to receive a general characterization of service, because Sailors who are separated for misconduct normally receive an other than honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06714-07

    Original file (06714-07.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.You enlisted in the Navy on 5 March 2002 at age 23. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04516-08

    Original file (04516-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 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. Given your misconduct, alcohol rehabilitation failure, and the fact that the separation authorities were ordered to issue you an RE-4...