DEPARTMENTOFTHENAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
Y
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
TRG
Docket No: 3932-01
29 November 2001
Dear
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 27 November 2001.
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.
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 enlisted in the Navy on 4 January 1994 for four years.
enlisted performance record (page 9) shows that you received
nonjudicial punishment on 6 January 1995.
July 1995 to 15 June 1997 you received three consecutive marginal
or adverse performance evaluations.
period 16 December 1996 to 15 June 1997 you were assigned an
adverse mark of 1.0 in the category pertaining to the quality of
your work, and marginal marks in two other categories.
evaluation comments state, in part, as follows:
In the evaluation for the
During the period 1
The
The
Requires constant supervision before beginning tasks
and while performing tasks.
Mishandled repair parts
resulting in several wasted days that could have been
used to repair equipment.
commitment to his job to support the ship by not
pursuing jobs to completion
Parts Petty Officers has improved, however, (he) still
needs to continue to concentrate on working with
others.
- teamwork with Repair
- exhibits a lack of
The evaluation indicates that you were not recommended for
promotion.
Individuals who are not recommended for promotion are
not normally recommended for retention,
recommendation was made in your case.
but inexplicably such a
There are no further evaluations in the record.
released from active duty on 6 October 1997 with your service
characterized as honorable.
At that time you were not
recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
You were
The Board believed that a record of three consecutive marginal
and adverse performance evaluations was sufficient to support the
assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code, despite the
recommendation for retention contained in the last performance
evaluation of record.
the retention block may have been checked in error.
the Board concludes that if a performance evaluation for the
period 15 June 1997 until your release from active duty on 6
October 1997 had been available, it would have been adverse.
Board concluded that the record supported the assignment of an
RE-4 reenlistment code and no change is warranted.
In this regard, the Board believed that
In addition,
The
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
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 | 07428-01
1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record From: To: Subj Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy filed an application with this Board requesting that the RE-4 reenlistment code issued on 30 May 1997 be changed to RE-1. As indicated, there is no basis in the Given the circumstances, the Board concludes that The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05563-01
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. During the period 16 March 1996 to 13 May 1998, you You reenlisted in the Navy on 13 April 1990 for five years and subsequently extended that enlistment on three occasions totaling 39 months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02015-03
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. The next evaluation for the period 16 March to 10 November 2000 is also adverse in that you were not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy. You state in your application, in effect, that your performance of duty was excellent and your undiagnosed medical condition should not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03438-06
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 mate:rial error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy for four years on 25 January 1995 at age 20. On 24 January 1999 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03796-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. A review In this military bearing/character, and Your record further reflects that you received an adverse special enlisted performance evaluation for the period of 16 June to 12 November 2001 to document the removal...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01172-99
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) , Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future reviewers will understand why he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code, contrary to the recommendation in the last performance evaluation. That Petitioner's naval record...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07482-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2008. 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. During the period from 15 June 2001 to 15 June 2002 you received a series of adverse performance evaluations from different raters and reporting seniors.
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 | CY2002 | 06328-00
He stated that although your enlistment would expire You were discharged In In your application you are appealing the reductions in rate from ET2 to ETSN. The Board noted that the discharge processing accordance with regulations and you did not contest the discharge by requesting an administrative discharge board. concluded that you were fortunate to have an honorable discharge since a general discharge was directed.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08743-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. You believe there was disparate treatment because the chief petty officer only received a punitive letter of reprimand and was retained in the Navy,...