Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04367-01
Original file (04367-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

ELP
Docket No. 4367-01
19 October 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.

Your allegations of error and injustice were

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
17 October 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.

considered your application on

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 3 September 1986
for four years at age 20.
On 5 November 1986 you were advanced
to FA (E-2) and extended your enlistment for an additional period
of 24 months in exchange for training in the Advanced Technical
Field Program and accelerated advancement to pay grade E-4.
However, you were dropped from the guaranteed boiler technician
This disenrollment
class 
constituted removal from the Advanced Technical Field Program;
and your extension of 5 November 1986 was cancelled.

"A" school for non-academic reasons.

The record reflects that you completed the Data Processing
Technical (DP)  
(E-4) on 16 May 1990.

"A" school in August 1988 and were advanced to DP3

Incident to your release from active duty, you received an
adverse enlisted performance evaluation for the period 1 July to
17 August 1990.

Adverse marks of 2.8 were assigned in the rating

categories of rate knowledge and reliability.
The command's
prior recommendations for your advancement and retention were
withdrawn.
17 August 1990, transferred to the Naval Reserve, and assigned an
RE-4 reenlistment code.
completion of your obligated service on 24 April 1994.

You were honorably released from active duty on

You were honorably discharged upon

Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals not recommended for reenlistment.
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 justification for a non-recommendation for
reenlistment and assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Board is reluctant to submit its judgment for that of the
commanding officer who is on the scene and is best qualified to
determine who should be recommended for retention.
provided no probative evidence or a convincing argument in
support of your application.
reenlistment code was proper and no change is warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

The Board thus concluded that the

The

You have

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
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.

You are entitled to have

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02529-02

    Original file (02529-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel -of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. you were not advanced to HN until 16 April 1989, which did not allow you much time to be advanced to HM3 prior to your release An RE-3R reenlistment code is not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08722-08

    Original file (08722-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 23 July 1993, you were honorably discharged from the Naval Reserve and were recommended for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01027-02

    Original file (01027-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and Board. The punishment imposed was a forfeiture of $207 On 23 On 5 August 1990, you were honorably released from active duty and transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05311-01

    Original file (05311-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. clear that you had to significantly improve both your performance of duty and conduct before you could be removed from petty officer quality control and receive a better reenlistment code. performance evaluation and the NJP, were sufficient to support the improvement in your performance, The...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05563-01

    Original file (05563-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 04344-01

    Original file (04344-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. November 1988. reenlistment and were assigned an At that time, you were not recommended for RR-4 reenlistment code. The Board concluded that two consecutive adverse performance evaluations were sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03300-01

    Original file (03300-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 05950-01

    Original file (05950-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04708-01

    Original file (04708-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 06704-10

    Original file (06704-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2011. Your record contains an adverse performance evaluation for the period from 8 June 1993 to 30 June 1994 which reflects, in part, that you were not recommended for advancement or retention. 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...