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

TRG
Docket No: 9247-06
15 June 2007

Dear

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 12 June 2007. 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 thq entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 21 February 2001 at age 25. During enlistment processing, you apparently answered “no”.to questions concerning financial delinquencies on your Questionnaire for National Security positions (SF 86).

On 9 may 2003, the Director Department of the Navy, Central Adjudication Facility (DONCAF) sent a notice of intent to deny you a security clearance to your command. An enclosure to the notice was a summary of disqualifying information which states that on 24 January 2001 you falsified your SF 86 by failing to disclose your delinquent debt information. Specifically, on 15 February 2001, a credit report was received by DONCAF and reflected past due debts, bad debts and a repossession. A credit report, dated 6 May 2003, indicates that your indebtedness problems had worsened. Consequently, you were processed for an administrative discharge by reason of fraudulent enlistment. In connection with this processing, you elected to waive your procedural rights. After review, the separation authority directed an honorable discharge by reason of fraudulent enlistment and you were so discharged on 30 April 2004 and
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

You contend in your application, in effect, that you should not have been processed for a fraudulent enlistment because the delinquent debt was not on your credit report when you completed the SF 86 form. As indicated, there was considerable bad debt information on the credit report less than a month after you signed the SF 86. The Board believed that you were aware of these your indebtedness problems and deliberately failed to enter that information on your SF 86. Therefore, you were properly discharged by reason of fraudulent enlistment.

Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of fraudulent enlistment. Since you have been treated no differently than others in your situations, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.

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 PFEIFFER
							Executive Director

2