Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00463-10
Original file (00463-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 ‘
° REC

Docket No: 00463-10
22 September 2010

 

 

 

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 22 September 2010. 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.

You enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 2 February 2009, and began a
period of active duty on 16 November 2009, at age 19. On

9 December 2009, a mental health evaluation was conducted and you
were diagnosed with a mood disorder with borderline features
which existed prior to your enlistment which you failed to
disclose. You were recommended for entry level separation. On
22 December 2009, you were discharged with an entry level
separation from active duty due to erroneous entry.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your overall record
of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant a change in the characterization of
service or reenlistment code, which was based on your fraudulent
entry. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is
appropriately assigned when an individual is discharged for
erroneous entry and is not recommended for retention.

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
Executive

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00544-10

    Original file (00544-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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 | 13114-09

    Original file (13114-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 2010. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00018-10

    Original file (00018-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. Consequent fy,” when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09485-09

    Original file (09485-09.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 June 2010. The Board found that you entered active duty in the Navy on 7 July 2009. 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 | CY2010 | 00840-10

    Original file (00840-10.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 so discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code on 13 October 2009. 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 | CY2010 | 03619-10

    Original file (03619-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 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 | CY2010 | 01911-10

    Original file (01911-10.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. It concluded that it would not be in the interest of justice to assign you a more favorable reentry 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 | CY2011 | 00444-11

    Original file (00444-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2011. This condition existed prior to your enlistment. 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 | 09668-09

    Original file (09668-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 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 | CY2009 | 10176-09

    Original file (10176-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 2010. 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and desire to change...