DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
				       2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 

							TJR
									Docket No: 2646-06
13 October 2006

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 3 October 2006. 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.

Prior to your enlistment you signed official documents in which you stated, in part, that you were not the subject of indebtedness or any pre-service convictions, or other involvement with law enforcement authorities.

You enlisted in the Navy on 7 February 2000 at age 21 and served without disciplinary incident. However, upon completion of your background check for a security clearance, it was noted that you failed to disclose adverse financial information and criminal conduct. As a result, your commanding officer was directed to process you for an administrative separation.

On 6 June 2003 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of defective entry and induction due to fraudulent enlistment as evidenced by your failure to disclose pre-service adverse financial information and criminal conduct.
At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to submit a statement in rebuttal to the separation. On 10 June 2003 your commanding officer recommended an honorable discharge by reason of defective entry and induction due to fraudulent enlistment. This recommendation stated, in part, as follows:

Processing in the case of Member was initiated upon receipt of his fraudulent enlistment concerning his failure to disclose adverse financial information and criminal conduct when enlisting in the Navy..., he has no intentions of clearing his debt, which he did not mention.... since he has no intentions of taking care of his debt, separation is in the best interest of the Member and the Navy.

Subsequently, the discharge authority directed an honorable discharge by reason of fraudulent entry, and on 20 Jun3 2003 you were so separated from the Navy 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 and assertion that, to the best of your knowledge, you disclosed all information regarding your debts, and have since resolved the debts incurred by your ex-wife. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code. Such a code is required when a Sailor is separated by reason of fraudulent entry. Further, there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your assertion. Accordingly, your application has been denied.

The Board also noted that you are entitled to submit the attached
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the
Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 293) to the Naval
Council of Personnel Boards, attention: Naval Discharge Review
Board, for consideration of a change in your narrative reason for
discharge.

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.

2

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 PFEIFFER
							Executive Director