DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR
CORIIECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINCiTON DC
2037(1-5100
TRG
Docket No: 8227-00
24 May 2001
Chairman, Board for
Secretary of the Navy
Clorrection of Naval Records
REVIEW OF
CORD OF
(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Case Summary
(2) Subject's naval
r'tcord
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Encl:
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
1.
former enlisted member of
(1) with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to
show a better reenlistment
assigned on 13 January 1995.
c'ode then the RE-4 reenlistment code
th'a United States Navy filed enclosure
The Board, consisting of Mr.
2.
LeBlanc, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 15 May 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that
the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record.
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
Documentary material considered by
McPartlin, Ms. Hare and Ms.
The Board, having
3.
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds
follows:
reviqwed all the facts of record pertaining
as.
a.
Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b.
Although it appears that Petitioner's application was
not filed in a timely manner,
waive the statute of limitations and review the application on
its merits.
it is in the interest of justice to
C .
Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 14 January 1991 for
shcws that she satisfactorily
ad.vanced to HM3 (E-4).
She
The
The record
four years at age 20.
completed initial training and was
then served in an satisfactory manner for several years.
enlisted performance record (page 9) shows that in the evaluation
for the period 1 July 1993 to 9
marginal mark of 3.2 in personal behavior and was not recommended
for advancement.
relate'd counseling entry states, in part,
as follows:
Noverrber 1993, she was assigned a
The
.
. (she) has been formally counseled on five occasions
.
for indebtedness, poor work performance, and failure to
complete assigned tasks . . .
d.
On 21 March 1994
Petitioner was counseled and warned
following unspecified violations of Articles 109 and 134 of the
Uniform Code of Military
in the performance evaluation for the period 10 November 1993 to
30 June 1994, she was assigned marks of 3.6 in every category.
On 19 September 1994 she received nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the main side
bowling alley.
rate from HM3 to HN (E-3),
The forfeitures and extra
The punishment imposed included a reduction in
forfeitures of pay and extra duty.
duty were suspended for six months.
However, the page 9 shows that
Juszice.
e.
There are no
furthe:c evaluations in the record, however,
the page 9 shows that there
date of the last evaluation
Petitioner was released from active duty on 13 January 1995 with
her service characterized as honorable.
that her final performance
indicate whether or not she
RE-4 reenlistment code was entered on the DD Form 214.
was a letter to extend the ending
from 30 June 1994 to 13 January 1995.
leas recommended for reenlistment. An
a'ferage was 3.7, but it does not
The page 9 indicates
g-
Petitioner contends that the RE-4 reenlistment code was
erroneously assigned because her performance was satisfactory,
and except for the NJP,
a change in the reenlistment code so that she will be eligible
for commissioning in the
Nav.1 when she completes her education.
she was an excellent Sailor.
She desires
CONCLUSION:
consideration of all the evidence of record the
The Board notes the two counseling entries and the NJP
Upon review and
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
she received on 19 September 1994.
that the NJP was for a relatively minor offenses and the
extension of the earlier
evaluation was still in effect on her release from active duty on
The Board believes that any individual with 3.6
13 January 1995.
evaluations would be and
and reenlistment.
Since
specific recommendation on Petitioner's reenlistment eligibility,
the Board concludes that the 3.6 evaluation should be controlling
and her reenlistment code should be changed to RE-1.
sho*Jld be recommended for advancement
the.re is no other indication of a
ove.rall 3.6 evaluation means that
However, the Board also notes
Given the fact that she
reenlistment recommendation
concludes that this Report
rece.ived NJP and the absence of any
.in the record, the Board further
o.f Proceedings, should be filed in
2
Petitioner's naval record so that all future reviewers will
understand the reason for
code.
the change in the RE-4 reenlistment
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by issuing a DD
a.
Form 215 to show that on 13
reenlistment code vice the
,January 1995 she was assigned an RE-1
RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.
That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's
b.
naval record.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
4.
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
Acting Recorder
5.
Pursuant to the delegation of
6(e) of the revised Procedures of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority of reference (a),
has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
authority set out in Section
the Board for Correction of
Regulations, Section 723.6(e))
Executive
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06122-01
Ms. Humberd, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 29 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. d. The enlisted performance record (page 9) shows that in the four evaluations after the NJP Petitioner received no marks below 3.0 in any category and the lowest overall evaluation was 3.2 In the evaluation for the period ending 30 June 1995 he was . The Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06312-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve applied to this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better characterization of service than the separation under honorable conditions and that her reenlistment code be changed. The majority notes that there are no performance evaluations in the record after 31 January 1995. In addition, the Board notes that she was not discharged on 9 January 1997 as is usually...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06423-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00TRGDocket No:6423-0722 May 2008From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OFRef: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed.2. Petitioner’s case was considered by the Naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02277-00
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 TRG Docket No: 2277-00 20 February 2001 Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy RECORD 0 (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Petitioner had been retained on active duty as required by law, Since an she would have completed her service and been retired. This is consistent with the However, the Board notes .that if Board- § 1176 were applicable The Board notes the Therefore,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04352-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 RECORD S 0 TRG Docket No: 4352-01 16 October 2001 Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy RECORD OF (a) Title 10 U.S.C. In the performance evaluation for the d. On 25 April 1995, Petitioner requested a hardship discharge stating, in part, as follows: . The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings 2 should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01475-02
Petitioner was released from active (LPH- f. Reference (b) requires the issuance of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals who have completed their enlistment and are serving in paygrades E-l or E-2 at the time of their release from active duty. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing assigned on 30 December 1993, to the RE-4 reenlistment code, 6, and that his date of separation be changed from 30 December 1993 to 20 January 1994. 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11812-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SIN Docket No: 11812-09 30 August 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj : =e OF NAVAL RECORD SFC Ref: (a) 10 U.8.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former petty officer of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change for the reason she was discharged from “Secretarial Authority by reason of Best...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02256-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON BC 20370-5100 TUR Docket No: 2256-09 25 January 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD 02y@———_RAadiazil Ret: (a) dQ U.S.C. The Board also takes into account Petitioner's record, which reflects honorable service and the lack of documentation specifying why he was not recommended for retention, advancement, or reenlistment. That...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02074-00
record (page 9) shows that for the period 11 March 1994 to 31 January 1995, you received an overall 3.6 performance evaluation. for the reenlistment of individuals who are discharged from the TDRL if they are otherwise qualified. 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 | 05382-01
5382-01 14 December 2001 From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF (a) 10 U.S.C.1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's Naval Record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that her reenlistment code be changed.. "must promote" and She was advanced to YN2 on Her next evaluation report...