Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06648-01
Original file (06648-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N  O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2   N A V Y   A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

TJR 
Docket No: 6648-01 
12 March 2002 

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. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval 
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 5 March 2002.  Your allegations of error and 
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. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire 
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient 
to establish the existence of probable material error or 
injustice. 

The Board found you enlisted in the Navy on 25 January 1978 at 
the age of 17, served without disciplinary incident, and were 
advanced in rate to AW3/(E-4).  However, your record contains an 
administrative remarks entry dated 18 January 1981 which notes 
that you were not eligible for reenlistment due to your declining 
professional performance, failure to accept responsibilities, and 
unwillingness to respond to counselling.  Also contained in your 
record is an enlisted performance record  (page 9) entry which 
notes that you were not recommended for reenlistment. 

Your record further reflects that you subsequently received an 
enlisted performance evaluation that assigned adverse marks of 
2.0  in the marking categories of professional performance and 
supervisory ability, and 2.8 in the category of military 
behavior. 

On 23 January 1981, at the expiration of your enlistment, you 
were honorably released from active duty and transferred to the 
Naval Reserve.  At that time you were assigned an RE-4 
reenlistment code. 

On 17 January 1984, upon completion of your obligated service, 
you were honorably discharged.  At that time you were not 
recommended for reenlistment. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, 
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating  factors, such as 
your youth and immaturity and your contention that your assigned 
RE-4  reenlistment code was a form of discrimination.  However, 
the Board concluded these factors and contention were not 
sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code.  Such a 
code is authorized when an individual is released from active 
duty and not recommended for reenlistment or retention.  The 
Board concluded that given the counselling entry of 18 January 
1981 and the substandard evaluation, the RE-4  reenlistment code 
was proper and appropriate.  Further, the Board noted that there 
is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support 
your contention of discrimination.  Given all the circumstances 
of your case, the Board concluded your 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. 

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 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09602-02

    Original file (09602-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09632-02

    Original file (09632-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 07447-01

    Original file (07447-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2002. 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 Board found that a record which includes five nonjudicial punishments and the final adverse performance evaluation was sufficient to support the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08750-02

    Original file (08750-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 June 2002. 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. Nevertheless, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07893-02

    Original file (07893-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. Subsequently, the discharge authority approved this recommendation your commanding officer was directed to issue you a general discharge by reason...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07475-01

    Original file (07475-01.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. The other Sailor admitted to assaulting a You and another Sailor were charged with On 21 October 1980 the On 3 November 1980 the Chief of Naval Personnel advised the command that it planned to take no separation action on the foregoing matter. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00085-02

    Original file (00085-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Naval Reserve filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 7 December 1989. The page 9 shows that in the evaluation for the period ending 7 December 1989, he was assigned marginal marks of 3.0 in the categories of reliability and personal behavior. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06134-00

    Original file (06134-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 March 2001. * You were advanced to RM3 (E-4), extended your enlistment for an additional period of four months, and served without further incident until 15 March 1982, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for use of marijuana. Counsel also noted that the senior member of the ADB was not an 0-4 line officer.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02041-03

    Original file (02041-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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. The reenlistment code assigned by the Marine Corps is an administrative marking which reflects the member's acceptability for reenlistment at the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07702-01

    Original file (07702-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2002. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, and your...