Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00931-01
Original file (00931-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF

 

THE: NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X

2 NAVY ANNE

S

WASHINC,TON  DC

 

2037C-5100

CRS
Docket No: 931-01
6 June 2001

ICorrection  of Naval

Documentary material 

\!our 

allelgations  of error and

zlpplicaticn for correction of your
provision:s  of Title 10, United

Dear
This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the 
States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for 
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 6 June 2001.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
considereid  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.
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 Navy on 1 March 1989 at
age 19.
transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve by reason of
pregnancy/childbirth.
reenlistment code of RE-3B.
honorable discharge from the Marine Corps Reserve and were
recommended for reenlistment.
The Board noted that an RE-3B reenlistment code is the most
favorable reenlistment code authorized by applicable regulatory
guidance for individuals discharged due to pregnancy/childbirth.
The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in
Accordingly, your application has been
your reenlistment code.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
denied.
furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken.
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material

On 15 September 1992 you were honorably separated and

At that time you were assigned a

On 18 April 1996 you received an

You are entitled to have the

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 
record, the burden is on the (applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

flor a correction of an official naval

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01949-01

    Original file (01949-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 October 1995 you were honorably released from active duty, transferred to the Naval Reserve, and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. You did not provide the second page You were not An RE-3B means the individual was discharged for Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-3B or RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals separated by reason of pregnancy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03266-99

    Original file (03266-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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. 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 | CY2008 | 03210-08

    Original file (03210-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You contend in your application, that the discharge by reason of parenthood is in error because you should have been discharged by reason of hardship. You believe that the reason of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04524-08

    Original file (04524-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2009. In your application you are requesting that an RE-3B reenlistment code be changed. 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 | CY2001 | 06318-01

    Original file (06318-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    6318-01 7 December 2001 From: To: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C.1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's Naval Record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that her reenlistment code be changed. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Dunn, Milner and Pauling 2. reviewed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0916 14

    Original file (NR0916 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 ยง. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2013. 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 | CY2009 | 07126-09

    Original file (07126-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. e. In August 1988 Petitioner was administratively processed for separation by reason of pregnancy/childbirth due to her inability to comply with the NFC policy program. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing ~ the RE-4 reenlistment code, assigned on 5 August 1988, to RE-3B.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05390-07

    Original file (05390-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) , Petitioner, a member of the Marine Corps Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting, in effect, that her record be corrected to show that she was released from active duty, vice being discharged 2 May 2002. Marine Corps regulations require the assignment of an RE-3N when a female Marine is separated early because of pregnancy or single parenthood.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record and especially...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05368-00

    Original file (05368-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The documentation to support the discharge processing and the quality of your performance and conduct have not been filed in your service record. On 9 December 1999 you You were honorably In the absence of any other documentation, the Board concluded that the comments in the DONCAF letter were sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9501 13

    Original file (NR9501 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the MDF (pregnancy or childbirth} separation code and RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reentry code issued on 2 May 1994, be upgraded. The Board, consisting of Mr. 4salman, Mr. Rothlein, and Ms. Henkel, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 23 July 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations,...