D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E N A V Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 N A W ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
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.
TRG
Docket No: 2643-98
19 August 1999
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 17 August 1999. 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you reported to SEAL TEAM FIVE on 15
September 1995 and were subsequently advanced to ET1 (E-6). In
the performance evaluation for the period 16 November to 15
September 1997 you were assigned an adverse mark of 1.0 in the
category of Military Bearing/Character, and were not recommended
for advancement or retention. The evaluation comments state, in
part, as follows:
Failed to live up to the Navy's Core Value of
Commitment. Put self above team and failed to
understand team goals. Less than two months before
deploying ... chose to violate his page 13 agreement to
extend his EAOS by six months which would allow him to
complete the deployment. He then requested to drop his
SEAL NEC.
In your rebuttal to the evaluation and in your application to the
Board, you stated that you were not compatible with the special
warfare community and decided to drop your SEAL designation
because you felt that you could not give the 100% effort
required, and you did not want to cause an adverse impact on your
team. You contend, in effect, that the command refused to give
your concerns any consideration and demanded that you complete
the deployment you had agreed to.
You were released from active duty on 15 September 1997 after
completing over seven years of active service. At that time you
were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board did not have access to the Administrative Remarks (Page
13) entry referred to in the evaluation. However, it is clear
that such an agreement existed. The Board believed that refusing
to extend your enlistment following a lengthy period of training
and shortly before a deployment was certainly sufficient to
support the adverse performance evaluation. The Board concluded
that this evaluation was sufficient to support 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.
Any adverse reenlistment code may be waived and reenlistment or
reserve affiliation authorized in the appropriate circumstances.
However, the granting of waivers is a matter solely within the
discretion of recruiting authorities.
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04169-01
They also considered your counsel's letters dated 25 June 2001 with enclosures, 25 July 2001 with enclosure, and 23 March 2002. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the reporting senior's action or that the reporting senior acted for an illegal or improper purpose. In this case, the reporting senior makes it clear in references (b) and (c) and his endorsement to the member's statement his reason for submitting the reports as they did.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 06170-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 August 1999. 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. You acknowledged that if you did not reenlist or extend as required, you would not be recommended for reenlistment and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07734-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 1999. 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. However, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code given your refusal to reenlist.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04401-02
Since you were disqualified for assignment to recruiting duty, your request for reenlistment was denied. The reenlistment code a~e..gned was an RE-3C. Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-3C r code when Headquarters Marine Corps believes that a restrictive reenlistment code is required and no other reenlistment code fits the circumstances of the case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04732-01
b. Petitioner's application to the Board was filed in a timely manner. Petitioner's naval record. This code will allow reenlistment if he is otherwise and the support he has received He concludes that the best In this regard, he The minority also concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reason for the change in the reason for discharge and reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03392-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2002. The members of the chain of command were present, made statements and were available to answer questions . He then told LT HI who then called Ms. D. The Board also considered the statement of the retired chief petty officer who stated that you were not derelict in your duties while you were treating him and that he did not see any disrespect.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 04067-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 1999. An RE-30 reenlistment code may be assigned to career Marines who receive PCS orders but refuse to extend or reenlist in order to obtain sufficient obligated service to carry out those orders. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00160-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 2002. Although the documents concerning your separation processing are not available in your records, it is clear that you were separated after you were offered and refused alcohol rehabilitation treatment, as indicated in your statements. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05106-99
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 Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY H E A D Q U A R T E R S U N I T E D S T A T E S M A R I N E C O R P S 3280 RUSSELL R O A D Q U A N T I C O , V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 1 0 3 IN R E P L Y R E F E R TO: 1610 MMER/PERB MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05583-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 1999. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1001/ 1 MMEA-6 of 17 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. - On 7 April 1997, u r n t e His current reenlistment was r enlistment contract was a probationary reenlistment contract.