Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08549-00
Original file (08549-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

CRS
Docket No: 8549-00
23 August 2001

Your allegations of error and

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
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 21 August 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 Naval Reserve on 17
December 1988.
You reported to active duty on 25 July 1989.
record reflects that on 16 July 1992 you received nonjudicial
punishment for stealing military property valued at $85.92.
punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $250 and a
reduction in pay grade to MSSN (E-3).
Subsequently, on 24 July
1992 you were honorably separated and transferred to the Naval
Reserve.
At that time you were assigned a reenlistment code of
RE-4.
On 16 December 1996 you received an honorable discharge
from the Naval Reserve.
The Board concluded that your nonjudicial punishment only eight
days before your release from active duty, resulting in a
reduction in rate, was sufficient to support the assignment of
the RE-4 reenlistment code.
is no error or injustice in your reenlistment code.
your application has been denied.
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

The Board thus concluded that there

The
The

The names and votes of the

Accordingly,

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

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00471-01

    Original file (00471-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2001. 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 believed that a record which includes two nonjudicial punishments, several counseling entries, and an alcohol related incident after...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07126-00

    Original file (07126-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals who are separated in pay grade Accordingly, E-l following an extended period of 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 | CY2001 | 06700-01

    Original file (06700-01.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. 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. On 25 February 1993 you received your fourth NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07478-01

    Original file (07478-01.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. Both the forfeitures and reduction were A 25 March 1992 Court However, the On the A page 9 entry shows that you were assigned adverse marks of 2.6 in military bearing and personal behavior for the reporting period 1 February to 16 October 1992, and you were not recommended for reenlistment. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05958-01

    Original file (05958-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 18 December 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 3 February 1996 you were You were Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals who are not recommended for reenlistment or who fail to meet the professional growth criteria for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00959-01

    Original file (00959-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 June 2001. On 7 June 1994, while still serving as an SR, you were honorably released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve with 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 | 02722-01

    Original file (02722-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, the Board concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code because of your misconduct, and since you were not recommended for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04595-09

    Original file (04595-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2010. 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 | 02202-00

    Original file (02202-00.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. The Board concluded that in the absence of the last performance evaluation, withholding your advancement and the nonjudicial punishment for a period of unauthorized absence were sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00305-10

    Original file (00305-10.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 February 2010. 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...