DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRs
Docket No: 10529-08
19 March 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 7 January 2009. 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 11 July 2003
For four years, which established your end of active obligated
service date as 10 July 2007.: Charges were preferred against you
on 26 June 2007 for violations of articles 107, 108 and 121 of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The charges related to the
loss, sale and wrongful disposition of spent brass ammunition
that was the military property of the United States. You were
placed in a legal hold status on 2 July 2007 pending trial by
court-martial. On 3 December 2007, the court suppressed a
statement you had made to a Criminal Investigation Division
investigator that was to the effect that the brass casings he
observed in the trunk of your car at a metals recycling center
were government property. The charges were withdrawn and
dismissed on 13 December 2007.
In correspondence dated 2 January 2008 your commanding officer
recommended to the Navy Personnel Command that you not be
permitted to reenlist because of your actions vis-a-vis the
loss/thelt of brass casings, which precluded you from performing
your duties as a master-at-arms, and caused him to lose
confidence in your ability to continue to werve on active duty.
In a message dated 17 January 2008, the Commander, Navy Personal.
Command (NPC) approved the denial of your request for
reenlistment, and directed that you be discharged by reason of
non-retention on active duty, and assigned a reentry code of RE-
4. In your final evaluation report, dated 30 January 2008, you
were not recommended for retention by your commanding officer.
You were honorably discharged on 30 January 2008 and assigned a
reentry code of RE-4 as directed by the Commander, NPC.
The dismissal of court-martial charges in your case did not
amount to a finding of innocence, or mandate that you be
permitted to reenlist. As you have not demonstrated that your
reentry code was assigned in error or unjustly, the Board was
unable to recommend any corrective action in your case.
Accordingly, it denied your application. 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,
\QuurQ.
W. DEAN PFEIL
Executive Dir
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700249
Charge VI: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (15 Specs) Specification 1: Solicited AO2 V_ to wrongfully wear NMCAM Medal. 20030131: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged this date by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. The Board did so.]
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07195-07
The author of the 6 December 2007 opinion, an assistant legal counsel to the Commander, NPC, advised the Board that since there is no evidence in your application or the documents submitted in Support thereof that you “ever voluntarily requested transfer to the Fleet Reserve”, you should submit your “voluntarily request” to the NPC for action in accordance with the provisions of the Navy Military Personnel Manual article 1910-166, which applies to requests for transfer to the Fleet Reserve...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100151
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks an RE code and discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.2. ” After examination of the records, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s command was not authorized as the Separation Authority to administratively separate him locally (due to the administrative board notification procedure). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01277
ND04-01277 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040809. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with Title 32, CFR, Section 724.116 and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part I, Paragraph 1.20, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01920-01
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant existence of probable material error or injustice. - Form 149, Block (1) In the enclosure accompanying reference (a), (DD 9), the Subject makes the following contention: "I was separated from the U.S. Navy (Reserve) due to misconduct with a was found not guilty on all counts and was not allowed to plead my case before a court martial prior to separation." I (2) At the start of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00870-01
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 | CY2006 | 09936-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 2007. On 18 July 2006 the NPC advised your command that ASN had approved the recommendation. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010765
From his perspective, he provides the following facts: a. the selection of the investigating officer (IO) was inappropriate for she was a member of the brigade staff, rated by the appointing officer, and senior rated by the approving officer who unduly influenced the results of the FLIPL; b. the IO was the brigade S-1 whose responsibilities included the management of the in- and out-processing of personnel in the brigade, and ultimately she was responsible for issuing, receiving, monitoring,...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301441
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10295-07
When informed of the recommendation, you waived the right to present your case to an administrative discharge board. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 31 January 2008 with enclosures and 24 March 2008, copies of which are attached. However, the Board found enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion dated 31 January 2008 established a valid basis for your commanding officer's (CO's) loss of confidence in your ability to...