DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJR
Docket No: 8697-98
30 June 1999
Dear Sain
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 22 June 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
The Board found you enlisted in the Navy on 11 June 1992 at the
age of 19 and served without disciplinary incident.
Your record reflects that for the period from 1 February to 30
November 1995, you received an adverse performance evaluation in
which you received an overall evaluation of 2.6, and prior
recommendations for advancement and retention were withdrawn. In
this special performance evaluation, the reporting senior also
noted that you were not recommended for advancement, retention,
or reenlistment due to your substandard performance and
deteriorating personal behavior. The evaluation noted, in part,
that you were counselled on several occasions for unauthorized
absences, falsifying a planned maintenance systems log, loss of a
Military identification code, making unauthorized long distance
telephone calls at the expense of the government, disobeying
lawful orders, absences from your appointed place of duty,
financial responsibilities, letters of indebtedness.
On 10 June 1996, while serving in paygrade E-3 and at the
expiration of your enlistment, you were honorably released from
active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve at the
completion of your military obligation. At this same time you
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 immaturity, and your contention that would like
your reenlistment code changed to so you may enlist in the Army
National Guard. The Board also considered your contentions that
your ability to serve was impaired by the death of your first
child and your divorce, and that the foregoing circumstances were
not taken into consideration when the RE-4 reenlistment code was
assigned. However, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant a change of your reenlistment code given
the nonrecommendation for advancement and reenlistment in the
performance evaluation for the period 1 February to 30 November
1995. The Board further considered the letters of character
reference and appreciation submitted in support of your case.
However, absent any performance evaluation for the period
December 1995 to June 1996, the Board concluded your reenlistment
code was proper as issued 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08477-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on.13 May 2009. 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. .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 | CY1999 | 07185-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. counseling or warning entry in the record and a single nonjudicial punishment for a 15 minute unauthorized absence did not support discharge due to a pattern of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02339-09
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 performance evaluation for the period from 16 March to 17 November 2000 states, in part, that you were not recommended for retention because you did not complete your obligated service requirements as stipulated in | — your 10 July 1997 agreement. Nevertheless, the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03438-06
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 mate:rial error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy for four years on 25 January 1995 at age 20. On 24 January 1999 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05187-99
opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) dated 20 December copies of which are attached. to this Board, the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) at HQMC has removed this comment from your last The Board first considered your contentions of error concerning the NJP of 10 January 1996, specifically, that although the service record entry of 8 ,January 1996 shows that the advice 5 M.J. 238 (CMA 1977) was required by United States v. Booker, given, it does not state that this advice...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00303-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, Your allegations of error and injustice were 8 May 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 13-month period documenting three counselings and problems with your government credit card debt provided sufficient justify- cation for a non-recommendation for retention and assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06704-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2011. Your record contains an adverse performance evaluation for the period from 8 June 1993 to 30 June 1994 which reflects, in part, that you were not recommended for advancement or retention. 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 | CY2001 | 07822-00
you exercised poor judgment and immaturity in the handling of your financial affairs, been involved in two incidents of The reporting senior noted that during this period Your performance as an EW2 However, the domestic violence, and failed your semi-annual physical readiness test. discharged on 24 March 2000 with an You were not recommended for retention and were honorably RX-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07768-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 14 March 1988. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08493-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2002. On 20 October 1995 you were notified that separation action was being initiated due to the diagnosed personality disorder. 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.