Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11151-09
Original file (11151-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TOR
Docket No: 11151-09
12 August 2010

 

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 10 August 2010. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

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.

Your record reflects that on 21 July 1986 you signed pre-
enlistment documents in which you stated “NO” to arug and alcohol
abuse questions. On 22 July 1986 you enlisted in.the Navy at age
22 and began a period of active duty on 5 January 1987. You
served without disciplinary incident, however, on 28 April 1987,
an investigation regarding wrongful use of drugs revealed that
you had deliberately omitted information about your pre-service
drug usage, and had failed to disclose this information for fear
of not being allowed to enlist in the Navy. The report stated,
in part, that during the period from August 1978 to May 1982 you
had used marijuana, hashish, speed, and acid.

On 31 March 1989 you were notified of administrative separation
by reason of defective and fraudulent enlistment due to your
failure to disclose pre-service drug and alcohol abuse. After
waiving your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and
an administrative discharge board, your commanding officer
recommended an honorable discharge by reason of fraudulent entry
as evidenced by you being a highly productive member, not being
the subject of any disciplinary incidents or misconduct,
maintaining an overall performance and conduct average of 3.8,
and exhibiting performance that was of such high caliber to earn
Communicator of the Quarter. The recommendation further stated
that you were well liked and had been a distinct asset to the
Navy. Subsequently, the discharge authority approved this
recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you
an honorable discharge by reason of fraudulent entry, and on 17
April 1989 you were so discharged and were 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 arid desire to change your reenlistment code and
presumably the narrative reason for separation so that you may
reenlist in the armed forces. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your
reenlistment code or narrative reason for separation because of
your failure to disclose your pre-service drug and alcohol abuse.
The Board concluded that your failure to disclose this
information was sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code, which is authorized by regulatory guidance.

Accordingly, your application has been denied.

The Board suggested that, if you wish, you may apply for a waiver
of your RE-4 reenlistment code with branches of the armed forces
other than the Navy.

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,

Wea Qe

Executive Di r

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2009 | 13161-09

    Original file (13161-09.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. It appears that you were subsequently notified of administrative separation action by reason of fraudulent enlistment due to your failure to disclose your pre-service drug and alcohol abuse involvement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10211-10

    Original file (10211-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 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 | CY2011 | 07727-11

    Original file (07727-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considere@a your -application on 2 August 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03691-09

    Original file (03691-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 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 | CY2001 | 02398-01

    Original file (02398-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were so discharged on 21 August 1987 and You did not The Board noted your contention that you have no Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals discharged by reason of erroneous enlistment. However, the Board concluded that failure to disclose a civil conviction for rape provided sufficient justification to warrant a non-recommendation for reenlistment and assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12864-09

    Original file (12864-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00651-99

    Original file (00651-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and you received a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse on 9 January 1989. In its review of your application...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02899-09

    Original file (02899-09.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. Therefore, you were recommended for separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to drug abuse, and you exercised your right to request an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04045-12

    Original file (04045-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2013. It was determined that your lack of properly disclosing this information warranted administrative separation for fraudulent entry. 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.