DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
. .
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
ELP
Docket No. 5872-01
13 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 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 5 November
1993 for three years as a PNSN (E-3).
reenlistment, you had completed more than four years of prior
active service.
At the time of your
The record reflects that you served without incident until
18 March 1994 when you received an oral reprimand at non-
judicial punishment (NJP) for operating a vehicle while drunk.
Thereafter, you were counseled regarding the alcohol abuse and
warned that failure to take corrective action could result in
administrative separation.
The record further reflects that you served without further
incident, were advanced to PN3 (E-4),
ment for an additional period of 33 months on 31 October 1996.
On 27 April 1997 you were awarded the Navy Achievement Medal for
superior performance of duties from November 1993 to January
1997.
You extended your enlistment for one month on 21 April
and extended your enlist-
You were honorably discharged on 4 September 1999 by
1999.
reason of "non-retention of active
reenlistment code.
completed more than 10 years of active service.
At the time of your discharge, you had
duty" and assigned an RE-6
Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-6 reenlistment code
to individuals separated by reason of "non-retention of active
An RE-6 reenlistment code means that an individual has
duty."
reached the high-year tenure limit for his pay grade.
At the
time of your separation,
E-4 was 10 years.
In order for you to have been eligible for an
RE-1 reenlistment code, you would have had to have been an E-5 at
the time of your discharge.
ly than others separated under similar circumstances, the Board
could find no error or injustice in your assigned reenlistment
code.
and no change is warranted.
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will
be furnished upon request.
The Board concluded that the reenlistment code was proper
the high-year tenure limit for pay grade
Since you were treated no different-
Accordingly, your application has
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00825-01
A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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. 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 | CY2002 | 02447-00
discharged on 24 February 1997 and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 4 reenlistment code to individuals who are not recommended for reenlistment. 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 | 01352-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is denied reenlistment due to HYT because he is serving in pay grade E-2. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04708-01
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 | CY2001 | 00968-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAb’AL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 ELP Docket No. 968-01 14 June 2001 This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. provisio,ns of Title 10, United A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06751-00
C. Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 31 August 1991 for six years as an EN3 (E-4). MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the majority, consisting of Messrs. Lightle and Geisler, concludes In this that Petitioner's request warrants favorable action. MINORITY CONCLUSION: The minority member, Mr. Taylor, agrees with Petitioner's request should be granted by changing his reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-6.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05106-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Bpard consisted Board. Reenlistment beyond the HYT limit of 10 years was not authorized and assignment of an RE-6 reenlistment code was required. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06323-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The reporting senior stated, in part, as follows: (Member) requires direct supervision to get satisfactory results.... he takes no ownership of any actions and constantly makes excuses for his...
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 | CY2001 | 08438-00
The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 1 February You then served 1991 for four years in the rate of SM2 (E-5). It indicates You were The DD Form 214 indicates At that time you were not RE-4, You contend, in effect, that you were improperly assigned the 4 reenlistment code because the performance evaluation shows that you were an SM2 and therefore, the high year tenure regulations did not apply in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...