Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05975-07
Original file (05975-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY A N NEX
                                              WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5100


                                                                                 TR G
Docket No: 5975-07
27 December 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 11 December 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 25 March 1986 at age 19. At that time, you concealed the fact that you were the mother of a daughter. The record shows that you satisfactorily completed initial training and reported to your first duty station in Hawaii on 17 July 1986. Subsequently, you informed your command of the fact that you had a dependent daughter. Initially, the command retained you on active duty, but you then began to have financial difficulties, On 28 April 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment for two instances of writing bad checks. The punishment imposed was a suspended reduction in rate.
On 6 June 1988, you were processed for an administrative discharge because of fraudulent enlistment. You objected to discharge and submitted a statement admitting to your fraudulent enlistment but requesting retention in the Navy. On 5 July 1988, the Commander, Fleet Training Group, recommended discharge, stating that your financial problems and domicile instability while assigned were directly attributable to your fraudulent enlistment and immaturity. After review, the discharge authority directed a general discharge by reason of fraudulent enlistment. You received the general discharge on 5 August 1988. At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
 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 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.
I am enclosing for your information, a copy of a 6 September 2007
letter from the Navy Personnel Command, which forwarded a DD Form
215 that made several corrections to your DD Form 214.
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








 Enclosure

























DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILUNGTOffTN 38O15-0O0O



1070
 PERS-3 12D1/06
SEP 6 2007


This is in response to your request (undated) to the Board for Correction of Naval Records In your request you asked that your reenlistment code of RE-4 be changed.
We have reviewed your military record and determined that your DD Form 214 dated August 5,
 1 988 contained errors in blocks 24 and 26. Consequently, we have issued the enclosed DD Form
21 5 to correct the errors. You should keep this document with your DD Form 214.
The Board for Correction of Naval Records will address your request concerning the reenlistment code.


Sincerely,








 Copy to:
Board for Correction of Naval Records
Navy Personnel Command (Pers-31C)
 Specialist Records Support Branch

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | BCNR | CY2002 | 00870-01

    Original file (00870-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    870-01 24 January 2002 Dear Mr.- 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. considered your application on Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 16 January 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 3...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06118-01

    Original file (06118-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    That board is authorized to change both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service. to that board. 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 | CY2007 | 06441-07

    Original file (06441-07.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.Prior to enlistment you answered “no” to all the questions in the marital, dependency status and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09247-06

    Original file (09247-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00419-06

    Original file (00419-06.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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 26 February 1985 at age 17. The Board also considered the statement...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10654-10

    Original file (10654-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 2011. 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09137-07

    Original file (09137-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. If the NDRB denies your request for recharacterization of the discharge, you may appeal that decision to this Board. 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 | 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. ...