DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203704100
TRG
Docket No: 9391-97
15 April 1999
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 13 April 1999.
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.
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
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 on 2 October 1985 for three
years and subsequently extended your enlistment for 19 months.
The records shows that during 1987 you received nonjudicial
punishment on two occasions for an unauthorized absence of about
18 hours and unspecified violations of Articles 90 and 92 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The record also shows that during the period from 1 April 1986 to
30 November 1987 you received two consecutive adverse performance
In the second evaluation for the period 1 April to
evaluations.
30 November 1987 you were assigned adverse marks in several
categories.
The evaluation comments state, in part, as follows:
. shown little interest outside his specialty and
.
avoids to the maximum extent possible any task or
responsibility not connected therein.
attitude and unproductive leadership have lead to poor
morale within his division and dissension among its
. He is not recommended for duty where he
members
must lead any number of men or manage large quantities
of equipment.
His negative
.
. .
..I’.
.
Based on your disciplinary record and adverse performance
evaluations your case was considered by the Petty Officer Quality
On 8 August 1988 you were issued a letter
Control Review Board.
of substandard service.
performance improved you could be denied further service.
were also informed that you could not be reenlisted or extended
without the approval of the Naval Military Personnel Command and
if you elected separation prior to removal from the quality
control program, you would be assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The record shows that on 30 August 1988 you signed a service
record entry acknowledging the contents of the letter of
substandard service.
The letter informed you that unless your
You
During the period from 1 December 1987 to 31 March 1990 you
received three performance evaluations which show that your
performance improved.
of your rating.
while still on the quality control program.
were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code based on the requirements
set forth in the letter of substandard service.
You were honorably discharged on 1 May 1990
However, you were assigned duties outside
At that time you
In reaching its decision the Board noted your disciplinary
record, adverse performance evaluations and the fact that you
elected separation prior to removal from quality control.
Board concluded that the RE-4 reenlistment code was properly
assigned and no change was warranted.
The
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and
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 | 05311-01
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. clear that you had to significantly improve both your performance of duty and conduct before you could be removed from petty officer quality control and receive a better reenlistment code. performance evaluation and the NJP, were sufficient to support the improvement in your performance, The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09424-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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. In this regard, you did not appeal your NUPs or submit rebuttal statements to your substandard performance evaluations.
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 | CY2002 | 05911-02
At that time he was recommended for The reporting senior stated that . He also notes that his last enlisted performance evaluation recommended him for advancement and retention. The Board reaches this conclusion even Petitioner was recommended for advancement Furthermore, in both of 3 The Board further notes the letter of substandard service and its requirements for avoiding the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code upon separation, specifically, that the individual request an extension...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07974-97
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 1993. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. After an evaluation, the diagnosis was personality." The Board also noted the comments by the CO in which he stated that you attempted suicide in 1987 and again in 1990, and on 16 April 1992 you stated that you were going to...
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 | 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 | CY2000 | 08558-00
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 May 2001. Your performance evaluation for the period from 1 December 1987 to 13 April 1988 reflects a nonrecommendation for continued service or reenlistment because you were not a positive contributor to the Navy. However, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code given your substandard performance and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03300-01
recommended for advancement, an RE-4 reenlistment code was the only code that could be assigned. differently than others released from active duty under similar circumstances, the Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned reenlistment code. 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.
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.