Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03181-09
Original file (03181-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SMS
Docket No: 3181-09
7 May 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 6 May 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

On 18 March 2003, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On

4 August 2004, you had nonjudicial punishment for failure to
obey a lawful order and two instances of dishonorable failure
to pay your debts. On 5 August 2004, you were counseled
regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct, placed
on one year of probation, directed to receive counseling and
training as required by the Security Training Department, and
warned that failure to comply could result in administrative
separation. On 4 March 2005, you were counseled regarding the
denial of your interim security clearance due to indebtedness,
questionable conduct and judgment, and warned that further
infractions could result in disciplinary action or an other
than honorable discharge. On 8 March 2005, you were ordered by
a civilian court to pay a judgment in the amount of $1604.10.
On 15 March 20905, your car was repossessed for overdue payments

of $794.46, and on 7 April 2005, garnishment was issued due to
your default on the court order dated 8 March 2005.
On 2 May 2005, your commanding officer initiated administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense. In connection with this processing, you
acknowledged the separation action and that it could result in
no less than a general discharge. On 9 May 2005, the
separation authority approved the recommendation and directed a
general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of
a serious offense. On 24 May 2005, you were so discharged and
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

Regulations direct assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to
members who are discharged due to misconduct. 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.

The Board noted that you also requested that your general
discharge be upgraded to honorable, but the Board did not
consider it since you have not exhausted your administrative
remedy by submitting the attached Application for the Review of
Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United
States (DD Form 293) to the Naval Discharge Review Board.

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,

Den Pes

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di

 
  
 

 

Enclosure

Copy to:
The Honorable Charlie Melancon

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11143-09

    Original file (11143-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code should not be changed, your pay grade of E-4 should not be reinstated, nor should your security clearance revocation documentation be removed because of your substandard performance and misconduct. The Board concluded that you were fortunate to receive a general characterization of service, because Sailors who are separated for misconduct normally receive an other than honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • 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 | BCNR | CY2008 | 05555-08

    Original file (05555-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2009. 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 | CY2007 | 08582-07

    Original file (08582-07.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 28 June 2005, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 8 March 2006, your commanding officer...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02548-09

    Original file (02548-09.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. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reenlistment code. 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 | 07459-07

    Original file (07459-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2008. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Regulations direct assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to members who are discharged by reason of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07409-10

    Original file (07409-10.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. You were counseled regarding your misconduct and warned that further offenses could result in administrative separation. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06017-02

    Original file (06017-02.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2003. 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 | CY2007 | 10877-07

    Original file (10877-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 2008. 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 | 07801-07

    Original file (07801-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2008. 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. Regulations direct assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to members who are discharged by reason of misconduct.