Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09034-08
Original file (09034-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
: 2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

CRS
Docket No: 9034-08

21 January 2009

 

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 10 December 2008. 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 on 25 April 1988.
On 22 February 1989 you made a statement that you had
participated in two homosexual acts prior to your enlistment and
several on active duty with another Sailor.

On 20 March 1989 your commanding officer recommended that you be
separated from the Navy with a general discharge by reason of
fraudulent entry. After review by the discharge authority, the
recommendation for separation was approved, and you received a
general discharge on 19 April 1989.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and belief
that you did not set out on purpose to fraudulently enlist. The
Board concluded that those factors were insufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your or a change in the reason for the
discharge, given your fraudulent entry. 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 PF!
Executive

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11151-09

    Original file (11151-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03550-07

    Original file (03550-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 2008. It is clear that individuals who have been denied a security clearance cannot serve in the Navy. 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 | 03395-07

    Original file (03395-07.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 24 October 1988 at age 23. As a result of your failure to disclose this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07502-07

    Original file (07502-07.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 1 November 1989 at age 19. As a result, on 18 January 1990, you were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01541-01

    Original file (01541-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. must receive a fully honorable characterization of service in order to receive benefits. Based on the foregoing, you are neither eligible to receive basic educational benefits nor are you eligible to receive a refund of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06143-10

    Original file (06143-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13351-09

    Original file (13351-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 September 2010. However, you failed to disclose this important information during your enlistment physical. 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 | CY2009 | 05669-09

    Original file (05669-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    + : A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 2010. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for fraudulent entry and is not recommended for retention. 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 | CY2014 | NR1268 14

    Original file (NR1268 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2015. 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 | CY2010 | 05157-10

    Original file (05157-10.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 February 2011. 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...