Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09247-06
Original file (09247-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OE THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 TRG
 Docket No: 9247-06
 15 June 2007





Dear
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 12 June 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 thq 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 21 February 2001 at age 25. During enlistment processing, you apparently answered “no”.to questions concerning financial delinquencies on your Questionnaire for National Security positions (SF 86).
On 9 may 2003, the Director Department of the Navy, Central Adjudication Facility (DONCAF) sent a notice of intent to deny you a security clearance to your command. An enclosure to the notice was a summary of disqualifying information which states that on 24 January 2001 you falsified your SF 86 by failing to disclose your delinquent debt information. Specifically, on 15 February 2001, a credit report was received by DONCAF and reflected past due debts, bad debts and a repossession. A credit report, dated 6 May 2003, indicates that your indebtedness problems had worsened. Consequently, you were processed for an administrative discharge by reason of fraudulent enlistment. In connection with this processing, you elected to waive your procedural rights. After review, the separation authority directed an honorable discharge by reason of fraudulent enlistment and you were so discharged on 30 April 2004 and
 assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
You contend in your application, in effect, that you should not have been processed for a fraudulent enlistment because the delinquent debt was not on your credit report when you completed the SF 86 form. As indicated, there was considerable bad debt information on the credit report less than a month after you signed the SF 86. The Board believed that you were aware of these your indebtedness problems and deliberately failed to enter that information on your SF 86. Therefore, you were properly discharged by reason of fraudulent enlistment.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of fraudulent enlistment. Since you have been treated no differently than others in your situations, 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



















2

Similar Decisions

  • 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...

  • 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 | BCNR | CY2004 | 03953-04

    Original file (03953-04.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. 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). Consequently,...

  • 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 | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01175

    Original file (ND02-01175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-CTM3, USN Docket No. Recommend CTM3 M_ W_ (Applicant) be separated from military service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization based on fraudulent enlistment." The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700343

    Original file (ND0700343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant was not discharged until 19930616, so the Board reviewed the record to determine whether he had been improperly held beyond EAS for administrative separation. Recommendation on Separation: BY 2-1 VOTE,Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19930202)Chief of Naval Personnel Recommendation (date) UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) (19930312)Separation Authority (date): ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (M&RA) (19930319)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601112

    Original file (ND0601112.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Discharge Process: NOT FOUND IN RECORDDate Notified:Reason for Discharge:Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: NOT FOUND IN RECORDRights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Administrative Board Obtain Copies Submit Statement(s) (date)GCMCA Review Administrative Board Date: NOT FOUND IN RECORDCommanding Officer Recommendation (date): NOT FOUND IN RECORDDischarge directed by (date):NOT FOUND IN RECORD Reason...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02964

    Original file (BC-2011-02964.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His discharge code of 2C bars him from reenlistment into any component of the US Air Force. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice to warrant the requested change to his reenlistment eligibility code. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that...

  • 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 | 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.