Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11024-06
Original file (11024-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJR
                                                                                          Docket No: 11024-06
                                                                                          25 October 2007




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 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 28 July 1993 at age 21 and extended this period of enlistment on 1 August 1997. You served without incident until 31 March 2000, when you were absent from your appointed place of duty on two occasions. However, no disciplinary action was taken for this misconduct..
On 13 October 2000, as a result of an investigation, you were charged with dereliction of duty, failure to obey orders or regulations, sodomy, conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and participating in indecent acts during the period from 11 September to 5 October 2000. Shortly thereafter, on 28 November 2000, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for making a false official statement, sodomy, adultery, and participating in indecent acts. The punishment imposed was reduction to paygrade E-3, restriction for 45 days, a $1,334 forfeiture of pay, and an oral admonition.





On 4 December 2000 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Subsequently, an ADB recommended a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 6 June 2001 your commanding officer concurred with the ADB recommendation. The discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 26 June 2001, you were so discharged and 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 youth and assertion that your discharge did not warrant an RE-4 reenlistment code. It also considered your desire to change your reenlistment code so that you may reenlist and earn a better characterization of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change of your reenlistment code because of the seriousness of your misconduct. Further, a Sailor separated by reason of misconduct must receive an RE-4 reenlistment code. Also, a Sailor separated by reason of misconduct would normally receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Finally, you were fortunate to receive a general discharge. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
You are entitled to submit the attached Application for the
Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the
United States (DD Form 293) to the Naval Council of Personnel
Boards, attention: Naval Discharge Review Board, 720 Kennon
Street, S. E., Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC
 20374-5023       for consideration of an upgrade of your discharge and
 a change in your narrative reason for discharge.
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.






2



 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



Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10351-10

    Original file (10351-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2011. 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 noted that you did not appeal your NUP.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01480-99

    Original file (01480-99.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 1999. You were re-notified that you were being processed for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction and sexual perversion. You were so discharged on 8 May 1980.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06293-06

    Original file (06293-06.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 31 August 2004 at age 19 and served without disciplinary incident until 21...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01651-00

    Original file (01651-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    discharge authority directed that you be given an opportunity to On 15 The request an administrative discharge board (ADB). After review in the Bureau of You essentially contend that you were improperly discharged In your application you are requesting, in effect, a change in the reason for your discharge so that you can receive separation pay- for misconduct based deficiency. The Board concluded that the general discharge by Accordingly, your application has been denied.

  • 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 | 02049-08

    Original file (02049-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 2009. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11377-09

    Original file (11377-09.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 25 April 2000 an administrative discharge board (ADB) recommended that you be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of homosexuality, with the execution of the discharge suspended for 12 months in order to serve sufficient time for retirement. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00847-11

    Original file (00847-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 October 2011. 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged due to misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11181-06

    Original file (11181-06.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 22 December 1998 at age 25 and served for four years without disciplinary...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4052 13

    Original file (NR4052 13.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 May 2014. 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 probable...