DEPARTMENT O F THE NAVY
BOARD FOR C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 NAVY ANNEX
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
TRG
Docket No: 6321-00
8 March 2001
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 6 March 2001. 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 in justice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 31
October 1994 at age 18 and reported for three years of active
duty on 20 June 1995. Although your record is incomplete, it
shows that on 17 April 1998 you received nonjudicial punishment
for two unspecified periods of unauthorized absence. The
punishment imposed included forfeitures of $500 and a reduction
in rate to SA (E-2). The reduction in rate was suspended. On 11
May 1989 the suspension was vacated due to continuing misconduct
and you were reduced to SA. Subsequently, you extended on active
duty for four months. You were released from active duty -as an
SA on 13 October 1998 with your service characterized as
honorable. At that time you were not recommended for
reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals who do not meet professional growth criteria
because they are serving in pay grade E-2 when they are released
from an extended period of active duty. In addition, your record
of misconduct could have led to the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code.
than others in your situation, the Board could not find an error
Since you have been treated no differently
or injustice in the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.
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 | CY2002 | 10413-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2003. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4. The Board did not consider whether the characterization of service or reason for your separation should be changed, since you did not ask for such consideration and you have not exhausted your administrative remedy by applying to the Naval Discharge and Review Board (NDRB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03176-03
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your nayal record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by ~eadquarters Marine Corps dated 11 April 2003, a copy of which is attached. 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 06232-01
The majority further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner' s naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reasons for the assignment of the RE-3B reenlistment code. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 18 December 1998 she was assigned an RE-3B reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. Since Petitioner has been treated no differently than others who failed to advance to E-3, the minority could...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08088-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 April 2002. On 16 June 2000 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your request for an upgrade of the discharge. Further, this contention is quite different from what you told the NDRB.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02926-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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 | CY2001 | 08338-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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. A recruit performance record entry reflects that on 13 March 1998, you failed battle stations for the third time.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08735-01
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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 | CY2001 | 03392-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2002. The members of the chain of command were present, made statements and were available to answer questions . He then told LT HI who then called Ms. D. The Board also considered the statement of the retired chief petty officer who stated that you were not derelict in your duties while you were treating him and that he did not see any disrespect.
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...