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 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 2390-99
20 August 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 18 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 record provided for the Board's review is incomplete.
However, available records reveal that you enlisted in the Navy
on 7 July 1994 for four years at age 19.
The record reflects that during the nine months poriod from March
to December 1996 you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP)
for larceny of a bag of steaks and a package of bagels and
English muffins, absence from restricted mens1 muster, desertion
for 31 days, a brief period of unauthorized absence and missing
movement. As a result of the third NJP, you were reduced in rate
to MSSA.
On 31 July 1998, you were honorably released from active duty,
transferred to the Naval Reserve, and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals separated in pay grades E-1 or E-2 since
reenlistment is not authorized. Your contention that the
assigned reenlistment code was based upon a single isolated
incident appears to be without merit. The three NJPs also
provided a basis for a non-recommendation for reenlistment and
assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment. Since you have been treated
no differently than others separated under similar circumstances,
the Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned
reenlistment code. The Board concluded that the reenlistment
code is proper 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 | 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 | 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 | CY1999 | 02791-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 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. Based on the diagnoses you were processed for an administrative separation.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08767-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08197-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 2002. 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 | 01316-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 June 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. 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 | CY2001 | 06070-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2002. 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. On 26 March 1996, this Board denied your requests for further recharacterization of your service, and changes in your narrative reason for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00169-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 1999. The Board concluded that the foregoing factor and contention were insufficient to warrant recharacterizaton of your discharge given your record of two NJPs and a conviction by a special court-martial in only 14 months of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02760-03
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. A review of the 2. reas administrative portion of his service record indicates that he was counseled concerning being arrested and charged with domestic violence and assault, not being recommended for promotion, and not being recommended for reenlistment because of commission of a serious...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01896-02
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 2002. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...