DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F NAVAL 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
TRG
Docket No: 7447-01
7 March 2002
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 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 18 November 1981 at age 17
and reported for three years of active duty on 21 June 1982.
During 1984 you received nonjudicial punishment on five
occasions. Your offenses were three periods of unauthorized
absence totaling about- three days, missing movement, several
absences from your appointed place of duty, dereliction of duty,
three instances of disobedience, making a false official
statement, and abandoning watch. The Enlisted Performance Record
(Page 9) shows that the in the evaluation for the period 1
February to 2 1 June 1985, you were assigned an adverse marks of
1 . 0 in reliability and 2 . 6 in several other categories. The page
9 indicates that you were not reconmended for reenlistment. The
DD Form 214 is not filed in your record. However, you state that
you were released from active duty on 21 June 1985 with your
service characterized as honorable.
In your application you are requesting a change in the RE-4
reenlistment code so that you can reenlist in the military. You
contend that a lieutenant was out to get you and caused your
disciplinary infractions.
The Board found that a record which includes five nonjudicial
punishments and the final adverse performance evaluation was
sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment
code. The Board concluded that the RE-4 reenlistment code was
properly assigned 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06070-01
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. On 26 March 1996, this Board denied your requests for further recharacterization of your service, and changes in your narrative reason for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07954-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 April 2002. In your case, the assignment of that code was also appropriate due to the civil conviction and two NJPs. 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 | 06648-01
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. 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 | 01896-02
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 2002. 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. 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 | CY2001 | 07880-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2002. You were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 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 | CY2001 | 01680-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 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. 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 | 00711-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 21 May 1998 you received a general discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02682-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 April 2002. 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. 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 | CY2002 | 09602-02
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 | CY1998 | 08288-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 1999. 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. On 13 February 1985 you received your third N J P for a day of UA and two incidents of wrongful use of marijuana.