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 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 4067-98
28 May 1999
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 26 May 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 reenlisted in the Marine Corps on
31 December 1991 for four years as a CPL (E-4). At the time of
your reenlistment you had completed more that six years of prior
active service in both the Army and Marine Corps.
The record reflects that you served without incident until 2 May
1994 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
dereliction in the performance of your duties and disobedience of
an order. Punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $300
which was suspended for three months, and 14 days of restriction
and extra police duties. The following day you were counseled
regarding your below average performance as a noncomnissioned
officer, specifically, absence from morning formation on two
occasions, failure to keep superiors informed of your
whereabouts, failure to maintain an updated recall phone number,
and poor personal appearance.
The record further reflects that on 23 July 1995 you received
permanent change of station (PCS) orders. However, on 4 October
1995 that you were advised that you would be assigned an RE-30
reenlistment code due to your refusal to reenlist or extend to
comply with PCS orders. You also declined to submit a statement
in rebuttal to the assigned reenlistment code. You were
honorably discharged on 18 October 1995 by reason of llvoluntary
discharge-completion of required active servicel1 and assigned an
RE-30 reenlistment code.
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.
The Board noted your contention that you refused PCS orders
because you were not reenlisting. However, absent convincing
evidence that you informed career planners long before orders
were issued that you did not intend to reenlist, the Board
concluded that the reenlistment code was correctly assigned. The
Board believed that you were fortunate that you were not assigned
an RE-4 reenlistment code since you were within six months of
reaching service limitations as a CPL. The Board concluded that
the reenlistment code was appropriate and no change is warranted.
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 PE'EIFFER
Executive Director
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 | 10717-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 15 January 2002 you were honorably discharged by reason of expiration of enlistment and assigned an RE-30 reenlistment code, as directed by CMC. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 02643-98
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. Any adverse reenlistment code may be waived and reenlistment or reserve affiliation authorized in the appropriate circumstances. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02198-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 1999. The career planner noted that although you were recommended for reenlistment in June 1991 by your previous CO, you were ineligible due to the four NJPs and should receive an RE-3C reenlistment code. The reenlistment code was assigned by the CO, not by the career planner.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03093-01
3093-01 15 October 2001 Dear 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. considered your application on Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 11 October 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The fact...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01912-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Cor ection of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, co sidered your application on 11 August 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materqal submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 06553-98
Since Petitioner was in good standing in the Marine Corps Reserve and would have been retired if he requested it prior to discharge, the Board concludes that his record should be corrected to show that he transferred to the Retired Reserve in the grade of MGYSGT. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future reviewers will understand his status in the Retired Reserve. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03677
The Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects the applicant failed to get retainability for PCS or TDY by the remarks code 80 which reflects the servicemember failed to get retainability for PCS or TDY. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 April 2006, for review and response. He was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Tue Jan 30 17_54_01 CST 2001
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 September 1999. Therefore, Warrant Officer Colemon did not warrant Marines in receipt of permanent change Staff Sergeant Lamie, the Marine 3. asserts was given preferential treatment, was approved for early reenlistment because he was complying with orders to recruiting duty. reenlistment in 1991. meet the requirements for an early reenlistment and his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Tue Jan 30 16_58_29 CST 2001
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 September 1999. Therefore, Warrant Officer Colemon did not warrant Marines in receipt of permanent change Staff Sergeant Lamie, the Marine 3. asserts was given preferential treatment, was approved for early reenlistment because he was complying with orders to recruiting duty. reenlistment in 1991. meet the requirements for an early reenlistment and his...