Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08766-06
Original file (08766-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                              
                                                               CRS     
                                             Docket No: 8766-06
                                                                                           3 November 2006


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 18 October 2006. 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 enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 21 November 1996 and reported to active duty on 4 August 1997. A special court-martial convened on 1 April 1999 and found you guilty of unauthorized absences totaling 30 days and failure to obey a lawful order.
On 3 June 1999 your commanding officer (CO) recommended that you be separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. When informed of this recommendation, you elected to waive the right to submit a statement in response to the discharge action. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 25 June 1999 you received a general discharge by reason of misconduct. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4. However, the record also indicates that on 12 July 1999 the Navy Personnel Command sent your CO’s recommendation for discharge to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, who approved it. The Navy Personnel Command then directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to unauthorized absences over 30
 days. This action was not implemented since you were already discharged.
Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to 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 Di rector

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00473-07

    Original file (00473-07.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 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 30 November 1999. After review by the discharge...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09325-02

    Original file (09325-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record appears to indicate that you were confined during the period of 6 to 30 December 1999. Therefore it appears that although you were not an unauthorized absentee during this period, time lost since you were serving the confinement adjudged at the The names SCM. 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 | CY2002 | 00008-02

    Original file (00008-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2002. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04776-05

    Original file (04776-05.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 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 21 June 1999. After review by the discharge...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00059-01

    Original file (00059-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. After review by the discharge authority, were discharged with a general discharge by reason of misconduct on 8 November 1999. reenlistment code of RE-4. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02526-01

    Original file (02526-01.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 May 2001. 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 | CY2001 | 01830-01

    Original file (01830-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 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 due to misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07882-07

    Original file (07882-07.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 26 October 2004, you enlisted in the Navy at age 19. On 10 March 2006, your commanding officer...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05727-07

    Original file (05727-07.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. The Board did not consider whether the characterization of service or reason for separation should be changed, since you have not exhausted your administrative remedy of applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00679-99

    Original file (00679-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and 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. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and you were discharged with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug At that time you were assigned a abuse on 13 November 1997. reenlistment code of...