Docket No: 1352-01
30 October 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 24 October 2001.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
your application, together with
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
all material submitted in support
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.
You reenlisted in the Navy on 17 August 1997 after almost five
years of active service on a prior enlistment.
you were advanced to IS3 (E-4).
There are no disciplinary
actions on file in your record.
However, on 7 October 1999 you
received a counseling entry following a violation of Article 107
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
evaluation for the period 16 July to 16 November 2000, your rate
was indicated to be ISSA (E-2) and you were not recommended for
retention in the Navy.
part, as follows:
It states in the evaluation comments, in
In the performance
On 16 June 1998
.
. is being separated from the U. S. Navy due to high
.
year tenure (HYT). . . . . is a willing worker, who
requires routine supervision to complete tasks.
As indicated, there are no disciplinary actions on file in your
service record and the reason you were reduced from IS3 to ISSA
is unknown.
the completion of 7 years,
service.
and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
At that time you were not recommended for reenlistment
You were honorably discharged on 16 November 2000 at
11 months and 29 days of active
In your application you point out, in effect, that you were
denied reenlistment due to reaching HYT and consequently should
have been assigned an RE-6 reenlistment code.
Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-6 reenlistment code
when an individual serving in pay grade E-4 is denied
reenlistment because of HYT.
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.
individual is not recommended for retention in the last
performance evaluation.
In addition, an RE-4 reenlistment code is assigned when an
The regulations require the
Since you were serving in pay grade
for retention in the last performance evaluation, the Board
concluded that the RE-4 reenlistment code was properly assigned.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
E-2 and were not recommended
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
2
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 | CY2001 | 00825-01
A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 June 2001. 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 | 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 | CY2013 | NR9132 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2014. 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. 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...
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 | CY2002 | 08177-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You then reenlisted for six years on 9 March The record reflects that you were advanced to TM2 (E-5) on 16 January 1980 and served without incident until 6 May 1982 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06751-00
C. Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 31 August 1991 for six years as an EN3 (E-4). MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the majority, consisting of Messrs. Lightle and Geisler, concludes In this that Petitioner's request warrants favorable action. MINORITY CONCLUSION: The minority member, Mr. Taylor, agrees with Petitioner's request should be granted by changing his reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-6.
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 | BCNR | CY2001 | 04708-01
Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 12 December 2001. 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. failure to pay a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05850-01
A You were marked 3.0 ("meets The reporting senior noted The evaluation for the period ending 15 July 2000 showed you were now promotable and meeting standards in all categories. discharged from your second enlistment, you had not advanced Therefore, you met the criteria for reenlistment when For the first reenlistment, an However, at the time you were 2 Since you The Board found beyond E-3 and were not recommended for advancement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...