DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203704100
TRG
Docket No:
28 May 1999
6265-98
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 25 May 1999.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
your
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
applica%ion, together with all material submitted in support
Your allegations of error and
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 Navy on 9 November
1971 after about nine years of active service, and served until
you were honorably discharged on 8 September 1977.
During this
enlistment you received nonjudicial punishment on four occasions
resulting in a reduction in grade from E-5 to E-3.
you were forced to change your rate from PC to SK.
advanced to SK3 (E-4) on 16 June 1977.
enlistment,
you completed an alcohol rehabilitation program.
Also during this
Additionally,
You were
On 16 November 1978 you were advanced to SK2 (E-5).
Despite this record you were allowed to reenlist on 9 September
1977.
reported aboard the USS CLIFTON SPRAGUE (FFG 16) on 23 November
1980.
follows:
A counseling entry of 29 May 1981 states, in part, as
You
.
. his inattention to detail in is daily work habits,
and failure to complete
was counseled on the problems of
He acknowledged the fact that the day
.
improper posting procedures,
assigned tasks. . . .
alcohol abuse.
after nights of heavy drinking his performance is
totally unacceptable and that some of his professional
and personal problems occur during this time. . . . has a
serious problems in lack of aggressive leadership . . .
(He) is scheduled to be frocked to SK1 on 2 June 1981.
I informed (him) that his professional and military
performance would be closely monitored during the next
few months and that a significant improvement was
required in order for him to be officially advanced for
pay purposes to
shortcomings and stated he would improve in all areas.
(He) acknowledged his
SKl.
The performance evaluation for the period 19
On 11 September 1981 you were again counseled concerning your
abuse of alcohol.
September 1980 to 8 October 1981 is adverse and you were not
recommended for advancement or retention in the Navy.
days later your recommendation for advancement was formally
withdrawn because of a lack of professional and military skills
and alcohol abuse.
period ending 31 December 1981 is also adverse.
The next performance evaluation for the
Thirteen
On 10 February 1982 the Bureau of Naval Personnel denied your
request to have the advancement recommendation reinstated.
May 1982 you transferred to the Fleet Reserve in the rate of SK2.
On 31
and you have submitted none,
There is no evidence in the record,
to support your contention that the command's decision not to
advance you to SK1 was improper.
The Board noted your poor
record in your prior enlistment and believed that you were
fortunate to have been allowed to reenlist.
that the counseling entries and the adverse performance
evaluations in your last enlistment were sufficient to support
the withdrawal of the recommendation for advancement.
the Board concluded that you were properly retired in the rate of
SK2.
The Board believed
-
_
Therefore,
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
The names and
upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case
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
are such that
2
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
3
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-045
This final decision, dated August 16, 2007, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was released from active duty into the Reserve on December 26, 1972, asked the Board to correct his DD 214 to show that he was an SK1/E-6, rather than an SK2/E-5. • On December 1, 1971, the applicant advanced to SK2/E-5. of COMDTINST M1900.4, a DD 214 is supposed to show the member’s pay grade at the time of separation and that the applicant’s military...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07475-01
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. The other Sailor admitted to assaulting a You and another Sailor were charged with On 21 October 1980 the On 3 November 1980 the Chief of Naval Personnel advised the command that it planned to take no separation action on the foregoing matter. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059774C070421
Effective 8 September 1982 the applicant was separated in the pay grade of E-6 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsuitability. The applicant’s available records also show that he enlisted in the ARNG after his separation from active duty. There is no evidence of record, and none submitted by the applicant, that his medical treatment on active duty was inadequate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019137
This document also shows both the applicant and physician placed their signatures on the document. Item 25 shows, in pertinent part, the medical doctor entered allergic penicillin, subcutaneous cyst right face; passed renal stone 1979, no problem since; and painful feet in basic training. This document also shows both the applicant and physician placed their signatures on the document. Thus, the evidence of record shows that the applicants record of service did not meet the standards of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03758-01
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 staff judge advocate reviewed the request and found On 5 October 1982 the You were so discharged on the.-service the Board carefully weighed In its review of your application, all potentially mitigating factors such as your letter in support of your application, your good post-service...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06696-02
Although the enlisted performance board initially recommended discharge, this decision was changed after you submitted evidence that you had met the weight standards. The fitness report for the period 13 September 1986 to 14 February 1987 states as follows:(He) is leaving the Marine Corps after nineteen years of dedicated service, including an extended tour in the Republic of Vietnam. Consequently, the Board concluded that a correction to your record to show that you retired from the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06765-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 2008. On 20 November 1986 you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were reduced to petty officer second class. At that time, you had completed 17 years, 11 months and 10 days of active service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01096-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Your allegations of error and 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. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03349-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2002. 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. At that time you denied suicidal ideation On 19 February 1982, after undergoing a You were sentenced to a $900 forfeiture paygrade E-l. On 12 April 1982 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 05689-00
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 May 2001. 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...