DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
TRG
Docket No: 5311-01
5 December 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 4 December 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.
.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 2 November 1987
for four years and subsequently extended that enlistment for two
additional years.
You successfully completed the nuclear power
program and on 30 July 1989 you reported aboard the USS SEA DEVIL
(SSN 664).
On 16 December 1990 you were advanced to MM2 (E-5).
In the performance evaluation for the period 1 July 1990 to 31
March 1991 you were assigned adverse marks of 2.6 in six
categories and 2.8 in two other categories.
evaluation was 2.8 and you were not recommended for advancement
or retention.
punishment
included forfeitures of pay and a reduction in rate to MM3 (E-4).
On 18 September 1991 you received nonjudicial
The overall
(NJP) for insubordination.
The punishment imposed
On 9 October 1991, based on the adverse performance evaluation,
you were issued a letter of substandard service which states that
you could not reenlist or extend your enlistment without specific
prior approval of the Chief of Naval Personnel.
The letter also
stated that you could only be removed from petty officer quality
control if you demonstrated 24 months of significantly improved
performance, and that you would be assigned an
M-4 reenlistment
code if you decided not to reenlist.
There are no further entries in your record concerning your
performance and conduct.
November 1993 with your service characterized as honorable. At
that time you were not recommended for reenlistment and were
Subsequently, you were
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
issued an honorable discharge at the expiration of your military
obligation.
You were released from active duty on 1
You contend in your application that since you had no
disciplinary actions for 24 months after the NJP, you should not
have been assigned the RE-4 reenlistment code.
Board noted the terms of the letter of substandard performance,
and further noted that there is no evidence showing that you were
It is
removed from the petty officer quality control program.
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.
As indicated, there is no documentation concerning such
improvement in the record.
performance evaluation and the NJP,
were sufficient to support the
improvement in your performance,
The Board concluded
assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.
that the reenlistment code was proper as assigned and no change
is warranted.
The Board believed that the adverse
However, the
without any evidence of
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 | 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 | CY1999 | 09391-97
The record also shows that during the period from 1 April 1986 to 30 November 1987 you received two consecutive adverse performance In the second evaluation for the period 1 April to evaluations. You were honorably discharged on 1 May 1990 However, you were assigned duties outside At that time you In reaching its decision the Board noted your disciplinary record, adverse performance evaluations and the fact that you elected separation prior to removal from quality control. Consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09424-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 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. In this regard, you did not appeal your NUPs or submit rebuttal statements to your substandard performance evaluations.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00214-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 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. Board found that these factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your service on release from active duty, given your disciplinary record and...
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 | CY1999 | 07974-97
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 1993. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. After an evaluation, the diagnosis was personality." The Board also noted the comments by the CO in which he stated that you attempted suicide in 1987 and again in 1990, and on 16 April 1992 you stated that you were going to...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 05836-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, application on 5 June 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. performance evaluation was sufficient...