Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07220-00
Original file (07220-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC

 

20370-5100

CRS
Docket No: 7220-00
2 July 2001

Your allegations of error and

At that time you were assigned

On 30 May 2001 your   general

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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Recordsi sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 27 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.
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 Marine Corps on 26 May
1992 at age 18.
discharge by reason of hardship.
a reenlistment code of RE-3B.
discharge was changed to an honorable discharge.
The Board noted that an RE-3B reenlistment code is the most
favorable reenlistment code authorized by applicable regulatory
The Board
guidance for individuals discharged due to hardship.
thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your
reenlistment code.
Accordingly, your application has been
denied.
furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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

The names and votes of the members of the panel will be

On 31 March 1993 you received a general

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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03210-08

    Original file (03210-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You contend in your application, that the discharge by reason of parenthood is in error because you should have been discharged by reason of hardship. You believe that the reason of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05979-01

    Original file (05979-01.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 December 2001. 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. your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00931-01

    Original file (00931-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. honorable discharge from the Marine Corps Reserve and were recommended for reenlistment. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in Accordingly, your application has been your reenlistment code.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01949-01

    Original file (01949-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 October 1995 you were honorably released from active duty, transferred to the Naval Reserve, and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. You did not provide the second page You were not An RE-3B means the individual was discharged for Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-3B or RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals separated by reason of pregnancy. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02990-04

    Original file (02990-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After your discharge, you were rated as 10% disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs.In your application you are requesting that the SPD code be changed to “JDG”, which will indicate that you were discharged by reason of parenthood or custody of minor children and your discharge was involuntary. Further, there is no evidence that a discharge by reason of physical disability was warranted. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01104-01

    Original file (01104-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Correction,of Naval A three-member panel of the Board for Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2001. 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. have the best reenlistment code authorized by regulations, and have been treated no differently than others discharged by reason of hardship, the Board could not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08490-02

    Original file (08490-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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 | CY2009 | 02000-09

    Original file (02000-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2009. Furthermore, the RE-3B code is the most favorable code that may be assigned when an individual is separated due to parenthood, and can be waived to allow reenlistment for active duty. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06619-00

    Original file (06619-00.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. or injustice in your reenlistment code. 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 | 03831-01

    Original file (03831-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 9 February 1984 at the age of 18. concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of your narrative reason for separation or reenlistment code because of your drug related misconduct and your failure to maintain a satisfactory drilling status. your case, the Board concluded your discharge, narrative reason for separation, and reenlistment code were proper as...