DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 8560-17/ 
           9547-14 
Ref: Signature date 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 24 August 2017. You previously 
petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of 19 August 2015 that your application had 
been denied. Your request for reconsideration was reviewed in accordance with Board for 
Correction of Naval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 
F.Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious reconsideration of the entire 
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of 
probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. 

Because your application was submitted with new assertions and evidence that were not 
previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your most recent 
application. In this regard, your current request was carefully examined by a three-member 
panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, on 10 January 
2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all 
material submitted in support thereof, available portions of your naval record and applicable 
statutes, regulations and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined a personal appearance 
with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your 
case based on the evidence of record. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 4 November 1999. During the 
period from 23 June 2000 to 6 November 2001, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 
three occasions for two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order, larceny, forgery, and 
unauthorized absence (UA). On 17 February 2004, you were notified of pending administrative 
separation action by reason of fraudulent enlistment after your security clearance investigation 
uncovered your failure to disclose criminal conduct and sexual behavior prior to enlisting. After 
you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge by reason of fraudulent enlistment. On 27 May 2004, the 
discharge authority directed a general (under honorable conditions) character of service, 
fraudulent enlistment separation reason, and a RE-4 reentry code. On 26 July 2004, you were 
discharged. 

The previous Board considered your request for an upgrade to your characterization of service. 
Your current application requests reconsideration and again seeks an upgrade to your discharge 
characterization on the basis of error and injustice and also seeks a change to the narrative reason 
for separation and an upgrade of your reentry code. You contend, in part, that you disclosed 
your prior service criminal record and, as evidence, submitted copies of the written statements 
you made at the time of enlistment. You also contend you appeared before a board of officers in 
Philadelphia regarding the criminal conduct. Because of your disclosure of the four criminal 
events, you contend you should not have been separated for fraudulent enlistment but that 
“convenience of the government” would be the appropriate separation reason. The Board 
considered the documentation you submitted in support of your contention but noted the 
summary of disqualifying information included in a letter from Director, Department of the 
Navy, Central Adjudication Facility (DONCAR) to you dated 24 October 2003 outlining six 
pages of pre-service criminal conduct. The Board concluded your failure to disclose the entirety 
of your pre-service criminal conduct warranted the assigned characterization of service, narrative 
reason, and reentry code. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your current reconsideration petition are such that 
favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its 
decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not 
previously considered by the Board. In the absence of sufficient new and material evidence for 
reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek 
relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

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, 

4/9/2019 


Executive Director