DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
TRG
Docket No: 4344-01
31 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 23 October 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 25 November 1986 for two years at
age 36, after about eight years of active service on prior
enlistments.
to 31 August 1988 is adverse and you were not recommended for
advancement or retention in the Navy.
7 September 1988, states, in part, as follows:
The performance evaluation for the period 1 April
A counseling entry, dated
.
.
. assigned a restrictive reenlistment code of RE-4
.
because of the lack of both the skill and desire to
supervise other personnel;
minimally many of the occupational standards required
in the RP rating, and lacks the competence to train,
guide and direct military subordinates.
fails the ability to perform
The performance evaluation for the period 1 September to 23
November 1988 is also adverse and you were not recommended for
advancement or retention.
November 1988.
reenlistment and were assigned an
At that time, you were not recommended for
RR-4 reenlistment code.
You were honorably discharged on 23
You desire a change in the reenlistment code so you may enlist in
You state that the senior chaplain wrote you
so that you could
the Naval Reserve at the end of your current enlistment in the
Air Force Reserve.
an adverse evaluation so that an extension would be canceled.
You desired that the extension be canceled
enter a convent to explore your religious calling.
However, the
Board noted that there is no evidence in the record, and you have
submitted none, to support your contention.
The Board concluded
that two consecutive adverse performance evaluations were
sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment
code.
and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
The names
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 | CY2001 | 04367-01
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. Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of command's recommendation for advancement and retention are not shown in available records, the Board concluded that an adverse evaluation for the two month period prior to your release from active duty provided sufficient...
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 | CY2008 | 08879-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your period of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04169-01
They also considered your counsel's letters dated 25 June 2001 with enclosures, 25 July 2001 with enclosure, and 23 March 2002. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the reporting senior's action or that the reporting senior acted for an illegal or improper purpose. In this case, the reporting senior makes it clear in references (b) and (c) and his endorsement to the member's statement his reason for submitting the reports as they did.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06765-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 2008. On 20 November 1986 you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were reduced to petty officer second class. At that time, you had completed 17 years, 11 months and 10 days of active service.
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 05911-02
At that time he was recommended for The reporting senior stated that . He also notes that his last enlisted performance evaluation recommended him for advancement and retention. The Board reaches this conclusion even Petitioner was recommended for advancement Furthermore, in both of 3 The Board further notes the letter of substandard service and its requirements for avoiding the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code upon separation, specifically, that the individual request an extension...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02221-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, application on 28 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The execution of all punishment was On 16 December 1985 you were advanced to first class petty officer (E-6) and on 21 July 1986 you extended your enlistment for a period of 27 months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06265-98
advanced to SK3 (E-4) on 16 June 1977. enlistment, you completed an alcohol rehabilitation program. The performance evaluation for the period 19 On 11 September 1981 you were again counseled concerning your abuse of alcohol. days later your recommendation for advancement was formally withdrawn because of a lack of professional and military skills and alcohol abuse.