DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 825-01
21 June 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 for the Board for Correction of Navy
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 20 June 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 injustice.
The record reflects that you reenlisted in the Navy on
11 November 1994 as a GM3 (E-4). The number of years for which
you enlisted could not be determined since the enlistment
contract is illegible. At the time of your reenlistment, you had
completed nearly six years of prior active service. You served
without incident until 16 February 1995, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for stealing $10 from another
service member and soliciting an AR (E-1) to steal $5 froma
service member. Punishment imposed consisted of a suspended
reduction in rate to GMGSN (E-3), a forfeiture of $300, and 20
days of restriction and extra duty.
Your served without further incident, were recommended for
retention and honorably discharged on 10 December 1999 by reason
of "Non-Retention on Active Duty." You were assigned a
separation code of "JGH" and a reenlistment code of RE-6.
Although the DD Form 214 indicates that you passed the
examination for GM2, it does not indicate you were a selectee for
advancement. You received separation pay of $14,706.52.
Regulations provide for the assignment of separation code "JGH"
to individuals who are involuntarily separated for failure to
meet high-year tenure (HYT) requirements. At the time of your
discharge, ten years was the HYT limit for individuals serving in
Pay grade E-4. Reenlistment beyond these limits was not autho-
rized without a waiver from the Commander, Navy Personnel
Command. The Board noted that you request that the separation
code be changed to "JBK." That code is assigned to individuals
who are involuntarily discharged upon completion of required
active service. While it appeared to the Board that you were
discharged upon completion of your required active service, the
reenlistment code determines eligibility for reenlistment.
Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-6 or RE-4
reenlistment code to an individual in pay grade E-4 who is
discharged by reason of "completion of required active service"
or "non retention on active duty." An RE-6 means that the
individual is ineligible for reenlistment due to the HYT factor.
An RE-4 reenlistment code means an individual is ineligible for
reenlistment without prior approval. Since neither the reason
for discharge nor the separation code are stigmatizing, the Board
could find no basis for changing the separation code. Further,
you were assigned the most favorable reenlistment code authorized
by regulation. 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,
i W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06890-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The following day, your counsel responded that any Your counsel On 23 February 1998, the secretarial designee directed that your records be corrected to show that you were involuntarily discharged on 13 December 1995 by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01352-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is denied reenlistment due to HYT because he is serving in pay grade E-2. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07518-01
At the time of his reenlistment, However, available records During his he had completed nearly six years of active service. The record why Petitioner was assigned an not recommended for retention approval from Commander, Navy contains no explanation as to RE-4 reenlistment code. In June 2000, the HYT limit was changed to 12 At the time of Petitioner's discharge, This means that CONCLUSION: It appears to the Board that Petitioner may have been Upon review and consideration of all the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05106-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Bpard consisted Board. Reenlistment beyond the HYT limit of 10 years was not authorized and assignment of an RE-6 reenlistment code was required. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09774-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reason for discharge (personality disorder) and RE-3G reenlistment code be changed. The evaluation recommended an expeditious administrative separation due to a personality disorder that existed prior to his enlistment. Ten months later, on 10 May 2006, his commanding officer issued him a counseling/warning concerning his diagnosed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05316-08
In response to a request from the Board, you stated that you do not have the DD Form 214 showing the separation and reenlistment code. As indicated in the enclosure, NPC states that you were assigned the correct separation and reenlistment codes. NPC also states that the amount of separation pay entered on your DD Form 214 appears to be correct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05885-06
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting a change in his separation code to establish entitlement to full separation pay. The Board, consisting of Mr. , Mr. and Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error a the injustice on 24 October 2006 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07845-02
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 Board found that you enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 20 October 1977 at age 20, and...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200802
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks a change in his RE-code.2. The Applicant seeks a change in his separation code. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03409-02
f. An individual serving as a SGT is limited to 13 years of Recently assigned to 2311 "Unlimited potential in MOS." h. A letter to Petitioner of 22 January 2002 from a representative of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) states that the RE-4 reenlistment code was properly assigned. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board now finds the existence of an injustice warranting The Board noted that although he did receive corrective action.