DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
2 NAVY ANNE
X
RECORD
S
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
TRG
Docket No: 5563-01
5 December 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 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.
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.
received three consecutive marginal or adverse performance
evaluations.
to 15 March 1998 states that you had received nonjudicial
punishment and failed the physical readiness test on two
occasions.
recommended for promotion and retention.
However, based on your recent improvements you were
The second evaluation, for the period 16 March 1997
In the next evaluation, for the period 16 March to 13 May 1998,
you were assigned adverse marks of 1.0 in the categories of
military bearing/character and personal job
accomplishment/initiative,
promotion or retention in the Navy.
state, in part, as follows:
and you were not recommended for
The evaluation comments
immediately at completion of last grading period
ihis) performance commenced a serious downward trend.
Shuns any responsibility as a second class petty
officer, is not proactive in seeking to increase his
professional or technical knowledge.
of deployment, has developed an anti-Navy attitude
which has directly influenced division morale and
subordinate personnel in a negative way. . . . . placed in
a liberty risk status . . . .
Since the start
You were honorably discharged on 12 July 1998 at the expiration
of your enlistment as extended.
12 years of active service,
$17,377.93.
reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
At that time you were not recommended for
Since you had completed almost
you were paid separation pay of
The Board concluded that three consecutive marginal or adverse
performance evaluations,
especially the last evaluation, 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 | 03932-01
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 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. Consequently, when applying for a...
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 | CY2002 | 06696-02
Although the enlisted performance board initially recommended discharge, this decision was changed after you submitted evidence that you had met the weight standards. The fitness report for the period 13 September 1986 to 14 February 1987 states as follows:(He) is leaving the Marine Corps after nineteen years of dedicated service, including an extended tour in the Republic of Vietnam. Consequently, the Board concluded that a correction to your record to show that you retired from the...
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 | 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 | 10639-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction oE Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2003. 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, 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 08298-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 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. reporting to this command member has had 2 larceny convictions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
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 | 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...