DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TJR
Docket No: 8558-00
30 May 2001
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 May 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
The Board found you reenlisted in the Navy for three years on 20 March 1985
after about 10 years of prior honorable service. You subsequently extended
that enlistment for three months.
Your record reflects that you continued to serve without disciplinary
incident but received marginal performance evaluations due to your
substandard performance. Your performance evaluation for the period from 1
December 1986 to 30 November 1987 reflects a nonrecommendation for
advancement or retention until you were more responsible, persevering, and
reliable. This evaluation also noted that your performance fluctuated
between marginal and adequate, and that you demonstrated satisfactory
performance only with constant prodding.
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. This evaluation
noted, in part, as follows:
Overall performance is substandard. Does not make a positive
contribution to this command. Initiative, motivation, and interest
toward his work are missing. Content with status quo. Slow in grasping
new procedures. Procrastinates. Reluctant to accept personal
accountability for shortcomings in either professional or personal
matters.
Member is not being allowed to reenlist or extend his enlistment. In
effect his contract is not being renewed for continued employment with
the U. S. Navy. He is not a positive contributor in making his work
center or the Navy better today than yesterday. He is specifically not
recommended for continued military service.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation action by
reason of convenience of the government due to early separation. The
discharge authority directed separation with an honorable discharge and
assigned an RE—4 reenlistment code. On 19 April 1988 you were so
discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully
weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable
service and your contention that the reenlistment code is unjust and should
be changed to an RE—i. However, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code given your
substandard performance and nonrecommendation for advancement, retention,
extended service, or reenlistment. Assignment of an RE—4 reenlistment code
is required when an individual is separated and not recommended for
reenlistment. Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded
that the assigned RE-4 reenlistment code was 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.
2
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
3
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 | 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 | CY2007 | 06382-07
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. December 1984 to 3 May 1985, which was submitted on the occasion of your separation, states that you were not recommended for advancement or retention due to an increase in your weight physical qualifications. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
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 | 05094-01
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. July 1990 you were honorably released from active duty at the expiration of your enlistment and assigned an RE-4 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 09391-97
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. 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. Consequently,...
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 | CY1999 | 07743-98
In the performance evaluation for You were Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to a diagnosed personality disorder. evaluations and the psychologist's opinion that you could be at risk to harm yourself or others were sufficient to support the decision not to recommend you for reenlistment and to assign you an RE-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07418-05
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.You enlisted in the Naval Reserve and began a period of active duty on 19 January 2000, and served...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07614-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 May 2011. 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...