DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
ELP
Docket No. 4708-01
14 December 2001
Dear
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,
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.
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 21 July 1994 for
four years at age 19.
without incident until 12 June 1995, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to your appointed
Thereafter, you served without further incident,
placed of duty.
extended your enlistment twice for a total of 24 months, and were
advanced to CTM3 (E-4) on 21 October 1997.
The record reflects that you served
The record further reflects that on 15 November 1999 you were
formally counseled regarding your failure to pay a debt.
Incident to your release from active duty, you were not
recommended for retention.
Record for the period from 16 June 1999 to 20 July 2000 assigned
an adverse mark of 1.0 (below standards) in the category of
quality of work and marks of 2.0 (progressing) in the categories
of professional knowledge,
leadership.
The reporting senior stated that you lacked maturity
The Evaluation Report and Counseling
military bearing/character, and
and motivation to be a petty officer,
and excessive supervision
was necessary to assist you in meeting personal and professional
responsibilities.
He stated that you were an unreliable Sailor
with a history of financial problems which, despite the efforts
of many, you had been unable to resolve.
On 20 July 2000 you were honorably released from active duty,
transferred to the Naval Reserve, and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals who are not recommended for reenlistment.
Your
contention that you were given an RE-4 reenlistment code because
you turned down orders and a school is neither supported by the
evidence of record nor by any evidence.in support of your
application.
failure to pay a debt, and an adverse evaluation report for the
last year of service provided sufficient justification for a
recommendation for retention and assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code.
code was proper and no change is warranted.
application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Accordingly, your
The names and votes of the members
The Board concluded that an NJP, counseling for
The Board concluded that the reenlistment
non-
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
2
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00303-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, Your allegations of error and injustice were 8 May 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 13-month period documenting three counselings and problems with your government credit card debt provided sufficient justify- cation for a non-recommendation for retention and assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09632-02
A three-member panel o$ the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2003. Although the documents concerning your separation processing are not contained in your records, it is clear that you were processed for separation by reason of fraudulent entry due to your failure to disclose pre-service medical treatment and diagnosed personality disorder. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
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 | CY2002 | 03909-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code was assigned based on your performance during your last year on active duty, and that you were counseled concerning the fact that you were not eligible to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02853-03
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100TJR Docket No: 2853-03 15 August 2003From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Furthermore, both reporting seniors stated that Petitioner was an exemplary leader with superb performance, and that the only reason he was not recommended for advancement was because of his failure to obtain his ESWS qualifications. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00494-06
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 material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 26 June 1998 at age 18. In the evaluation for the period ending 11...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807519
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG Docket No: 7519-98 14 July 1999 Dear
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06940-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The Board found that the last performance evaluationdocumenting your FAP failures was sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code without consideration of previous evaluations and concluded that the...
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,...