DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket No: 02358-12
27 February 2013
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 14 February 2013. 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 entered active duty service in the Navy on 19 January 1999,
and served without disciplinary incident until 9 June 2000, when
you were convicted at a general courts-martial (GCM) for Article
120 violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, (rape,
sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct), and Article 134
(general order violation). You received confinement for a period
of one year, and a dishonorable discharge (DD). Therefore, after
appellate review, you were separated on 23 January 2006, with a
DD and an RE-4 reentry code (not recommended for reenlistment) .
However, 21 July 2005, your conviction was set aside and you
received an honorable discharge, and RE-4 reentry.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your conviction being set aside. Nevertheless, the Board noted
that the RE-4 reentry code you received was authorized. An RE-4
reentry code is merely the Navy’s recommendation against
reenlistment. Another branch of the armed forces may be willing
to waive it. 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 Deore,
W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Dikeéc
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0790 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2014. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801415
The three member administrative board returned findings of misconduct by a vote of 2-1, by a vote of 3-0 that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 3-0 that the separation should be characterized as “Under Other Than Honorable ” . The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM:...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000508
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant desires his reenlistment code to be changed to RE-2 (not recommended for reenlistment due to retirement.)2. Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall SUFFICIENT SERVICE FOR RETIREMENT.Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04313-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Finally, on 28 June 1993, CO, USS Merrill sent a letter-to the Commander, Bureau of Naval Personnel requesting the removal of the article 84 conviction and the repayment of $550.00 forfeited by Petitioner as a result...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01487-02
paygrade E-4, was awarded reduction to paygrade E-3, forfeiture of $600.00 pay per month for 2 The NJP authority suspended Enclosure (1) pertains. Based on the documentary evidence Moreover, Similarly, Petitioner was informed the NJP proceeding was conducted Petitioner makes no claim that her request for If Petitioner truly believed she was not guilty r-ights to which she was Petitioner was advised of her right to counsel provided by Petitioner, properly and Petitioner received all...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6433 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 2015. 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07468-98
The Board found that you reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 28 November 1985 for six years as a SGT (E-5). Rules for Courts-Martial A promulgating order (RCM) the Board carefully reviewed In its review of your application, your record for any mitigating factors which might warrant removing the general court-martial from your record and restoring you to your original date of rank of SGT. the Board noted your contention to the effect that the general court-martial is nullified because the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1919 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2015. 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 | CY2014 | NR6538 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2014. 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 | CY2001 | 05149-99
M&RA noted specifically that Petitioner's relationship with the On 23 June 1999, the petty officer Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASN(M&RA)) directed Petitioner's discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service. this relief is neither available Accordingly, a Petitioner supports his request for an honorable characterization of service with essentially four arguments: b. one, his discharge was improper because it was not based on...