DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD F O R C O R R E C T I O N OF NAVAL R E C O R D S
2 NAVY ANNEX
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
ELP
Docket No. 8338-01
11 April 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 Navy Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
10 April 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.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 23 December 1997
for four years at age 18. The record r e f l e c k s L h a L you were
formally counseled on 4 March 1998 for failing battle stations
for the second time. You were warned that further failure could
result in administrative separation. On 12 March 1998 a recruit
evaluation report stated that you were a goo@ recruit who always
exerted effort, but you were not physically fit. It was
recommended that you be left in the physical fitness training
unit so you could to build up your endurance for a third attempt
at battle stations.
A recruit performance record entry reflects that on 13 March
1998, you failed battle stations for the third time. At that
time, you complained of hip pain and were taken to the hospital
for examination. The same entry states that it was later
reported by fellow recruits that you "were the recruit who snuck
I x h c l r i n y o r a n k s a f k ~ r f w g
t h e t r a s k , " Thc
t a - w o u n d
chain of c o m n d recommended separation.
On 30 March 1998 you were notified that administrative separation
was being initiated by reason of entry level performance and
conduct due to an inability or lack of effort to complete battle
stations. You were advised of your procedural rights, declined
to consult with legal counsel or submit a statement in your own
behalf, and waived the right to have the your case reviewed by
the general court-martial convening authority. Thereafter, the
discharge authority directed an uncharacterized entry level
separation by reason of entry level performance and conduct. You
were so discharged on 6 April 1998 and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals separated for entry level performance and conduct.
Your contention that the reason for discharge was the hip injury
is neither supported by the evidence of record nor by any
evidence submitted in support of your application. On the
contrary, you were separated because you could not complete
battle stations, due either to your lack of physical fitness or
unwillingness to continue to put forth the necessary effort.
Since you were treated no differently than others separated under
similar circumstances, the Board could find no error or injustice
in your assigned reenlistment code. The fact that you desire to
reenlist does not provide a valid reason for change a correctly
assigned reenlistment code. 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 PE'EIFE'ER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03156-01
You also made new requests to remove your relief for cause from recruiting duty, which was requested on 5 April 1999; your nonjudicial punishment of 29 March 1999; and your service record page 11 counseling entries dated 17 and 24 February 1999. We are asked to provide an advisory opinion on Petitioner's request for the removal from his Service Record Book (SRB) and his official military personnel file (OMPF) of all references to his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 29 March 1999 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08735-01
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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 | CY1999 | 03355-99
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. However, petitioner d i ; l not initia1l.y reenlist under the STAR program, because at the ti!r!,: of r=.enlistrnent, the STS rate was not. T h i s i s a n a d v i s o r y memorandum t o r e f e r e n c e ( a ) f o r t h e u s e by t h e Board f o r C o r r e c t i o n of Naval Records ( P N R ) o n p .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04637-01
In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit for duty at the time of your discharge, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. 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. 0 2 M A Y 1 9 9 6 DATE MEMBER'S STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING: I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RECOMMENDED F I N D I N G OF F I T FOR DUTY I S S U B J E C T...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00141A
The supervisors at hand did not offer positive mentoring, but told me the Air Force comes first, and that is the Air Force. I am recommending your discharge from the United States Air Force for Misconduct, Minor Disciplinary Infractions. For violating 24-hours quarters authorization, you received a LOR on 31 Mar 99, which was placed in your existing UIF on 13 Apr 99 (Atch 4, Tab 1).
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 | CY2003 | 02328-03
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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 11 March 2003, a copy of which is attached. 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 | 03217-02
A three-~nember panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2002. The medical board report indicates that you had undc:.guw an osteotomy in 1979 to cc)rr'Cd dysplasia of your left hip, and that you had been active in sports and had little difficulty with your hip since that time. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04628-02
advise-hat the report had been " . ~ a r i n e Reported On: a. L u t Name b. In marking the comparison, consider all Marines of this grade whose professional abilities are known to you personally.
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00302
550 C STREET WEST, SlJl I'll40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 7 8 150-4742 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMHER FI)-2006-00302 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of dischargc to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment codc. The Board notcd that the applicant was provided and consulted legal counsel during his discharge process and waived his right to...