DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECOADS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 8743-00
28 June 2001
Dear W777i.
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 26 June 2001. 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 Naval Reserve on 24 July
1997 at age 17 and reported for three years of active duty on 1
October 1997. The record shows that you served in a satisfactory
manner for over two years and were advanced in rate to AZ3 (E-4).
In the performance evaluation for the period 19 June to 30
November 2000, you were assigned an adverse mark of 1.0 in the
category of military bearing/character, a marginal mark of 2.0 in
teamwork, and were not recommended for advancement or retention.
The evaluation comments state, in part, as follows:
... Substandard behavior and conduct. Unsatisfactory
conduct due to admitted fraternization and knowingly
violating directives. Loss of confidence in
willingness to meet minimal core value expectations.
You were released from active duty on 30 November 2000 with your
service characterized as honorable. At that time you were
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
You state in your application that you were a 19 year old airman
involved with a 38 year old chief petty officer. You believe
there was disparate treatment because the chief petty officer
only received a punitive letter of reprimand and was retained in
the Navy, while you were denied reenlistment and were assigned an
RE-4 reenlistment code.
It was clear to the Board that you were aware of the Navy's
fraternization policy but chose to disregard it. The Board notes
that the only action taken against you was the adverse
performance evaluation and the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment
code. The chief petty officer received nonjudicial punishment
which probably means that he will retire without further
promotion. The Board concluded that the final adverse
performance evaluation was sufficient to support the assignment
of the RE-4 reenlistment code and the commanding officer did not
abuse his discretion in this matter.
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 | 05850-01
A You were marked 3.0 ("meets The reporting senior noted The evaluation for the period ending 15 July 2000 showed you were now promotable and meeting standards in all categories. discharged from your second enlistment, you had not advanced Therefore, you met the criteria for reenlistment when For the first reenlistment, an However, at the time you were 2 Since you The Board found beyond E-3 and were not recommended for advancement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04708-01
Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 12 December 2001. 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. failure to pay a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03909-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code was assigned based on your performance during your last year on active duty, and that you were counseled concerning the fact that you were not eligible to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03796-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. A review In this military bearing/character, and Your record further reflects that you received an adverse special enlisted performance evaluation for the period of 16 June to 12 November 2001 to document the removal...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04935-00
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 material error or injustice. s provided several letters o Offic insight and reflect favorably on Petty C as e. Counseling of a member takes many forms.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05311-01
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. clear that you had to significantly improve both your performance of duty and conduct before you could be removed from petty officer quality control and receive a better reenlistment code. performance evaluation and the NJP, were sufficient to support the improvement in your performance, The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03392-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2002. The members of the chain of command were present, made statements and were available to answer questions . He then told LT HI who then called Ms. D. The Board also considered the statement of the retired chief petty officer who stated that you were not derelict in your duties while you were treating him and that he did not see any disrespect.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04079-04
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 13 June 2001 as a petty officer second class (DK2; E-5). However,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01172-99
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) , Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future reviewers will understand why he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code, contrary to the recommendation in the last performance evaluation. That Petitioner's naval record...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05149-99
M&RA noted specifically that Petitioner's relationship with the On 23 June 1999, the petty officer Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASN(M&RA)) directed Petitioner's discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service. this relief is neither available Accordingly, a Petitioner supports his request for an honorable characterization of service with essentially four arguments: b. one, his discharge was improper because it was not based on...