Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10735-10
Original file (10735-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Decket No: 10735-10
18 August 2011

 

 

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 17 August 2011. 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 on 5 July 1989. On 28 April 1993, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status. On 28 January 1994, you
received NIP for being absent from your appointed place of duty,
assault, and committing fraud against the United States. On 17
February 1995, you were honorably discharged from active duty
while serving in pay grade E-3 and were not recommended for
reenlistment, so you were assigned an RE-4 reentry code.

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
mot sufficient to warrant a change in the reentry code, given
your record of two NJP’s for misconduct. In this regard, an RE-4
reentry code is authorized when an individual is discharged at
the expiration of his term of active obligated service 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,

ls hunk

W. DEAN PFEIRFE
Executive Direc

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05221-10

    Original file (05221-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reentry code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00058-11

    Original file (00058-11.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. 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 4 January 1993, the discharge authority directed the OTH discharge by reason of a pattern of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00236-11

    Original file (00236-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 2011. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reason for separation or RE-4 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 | 00211-11

    Original file (00211-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 2011. In this regard, an RE-4 reentry code is required when an individual is discharged at the expiration of his term of enlistment 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 | CY2011 | 03135-11

    Original file (03135-11.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 January 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 | 01255-11

    Original file (01255-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval. 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05164-10

    Original file (05164-10.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. 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 | 07985-10

    Original file (07985-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. On 5 January 1993, your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an OTH discharge due to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08848-10

    Original file (08848-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2011. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant such a change of your reentry code given your NJP and diagnosed personality disorder. In this regard, you were assigned the appropriate reentry code based on your circumstances.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10691-10

    Original file (10691-10.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. On 1 November-1993, your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct. On 32 January 1994, the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct.