DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
TRG
Docket No: 1795-01
14 February 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 12 February 2002.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
Board.
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
Your allegations of error and
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 Marine Corps on 22 March 1997 for two years
in the grade of SSGT (E-6).
At that time, you had over 13 years
of active duty.
A letter in your record states that this was a
probationary reenlistment because of financial irresponsibility,
and you had been officially counseled concerning this matter.
The record shows that your divorce became final on 7 September
1997 and you were granted sole custody of your two minor
children.
In the fitness report for the period 1 October 1998 to 1 February
1999, you were assigned an adverse mark in initiative and marked
as unsatisfactory in the comparative assessment section.
Although you submitted several statements, the report has been
accepted and is on file in your service record.
The fitness
report comments state that you had been counseled on three
occasions concerning your deficiencies.
fitness report and a not observed fitness report in the five
months preceding your discharge.
The record shows that you were
denied reenlistment and were honorably discharged on 21 June 1999
with an RE-4 reenlistment code.
you had completed 15 years,
At the time of your discharge
You received a marginal
8 months and 4 days of active service
and were paid one half separation pay in the amount of
$19,489.02.
On 16 July 1999, Headquarters Marine Corps directed that the
fitness report for the period 16 March to 21 June 1996 be removed
from your record.
not stated.
The reason for the removal of this report is
In your application you are requesting reenlistment in the Marine
Corps, a change in the reenlistment code, payment of full
separation pay and/or early retirement from the Marine Corps.
The Board can correct a record, but the decision to authorize
reenlistment is solely a matter within the prerogative of the
Marine Corps.
the temporary early retirement authority, and there is no
provision for early retirement in your case.
effect, that the decision to only grant you the two year
probationary reenlistment was unjust because it was based on the
fitness report which has now removed from your record.
You
further contend that your performance was better than that set
forth in the fitness report for the period ending 1 February
1999.
In addition, the Marine Corps did not implement
You contend, in
Therefore, the Board could not
The Board noted that even without the removed fitness report,
there is documentation to support the decision to only grant a
probationary reenlistment.
conclude that there was an abuse of discretion in this matter.
The Board believed that the adverse fitness report for the period
ending 1 February 1999 and the recommendation that you not be
reenlisted by your commanding officer were sufficient to support
the decision by Headquarters Marine Corps not to grant you
further service.
reenlistment code when an individual is not recommended for
retention.
Since you have been treated no differently than
others in your situation,
injustice in the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4
the Board could not find an error or
Concerning your request for full separation pay, the regulations
authorize the payment of only one half separation pay if an
individual is not fully qualified for retention.
not recommended for retention because of performance problems,
the Board concluded that one half separation pay was appropriate
in your case.
Since you were
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
The names and
upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case
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.
are such that
2
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
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05583-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 1999. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1001/ 1 MMEA-6 of 17 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. - On 7 April 1997, u r n t e His current reenlistment was r enlistment contract was a probationary reenlistment contract.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02064-00
1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record , From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps submitted an application to this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show that he was not discharged on 15 April 1998 but was retained in the Marine Corps until he qualified to retire. "has an alternate weight standard The fitness report 68" At that time, he...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06285-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2003. 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. In support of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08044-06
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 Marine Corps on 22 April 1997 for four years, which was later extended for 15...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01964-00
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and In addition, the Board considered the advisory applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Control (ECFC) policy, According to the Enlisted Career Force sergeants who have twice failed selection to the next higher grade must leave active duty at he end of active service sergeant twice and was therefore denied further service. in order...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01374-99
e. Since the NJP appeal was approved, Petitioner is requesting that all documentation concerning the NJP be removed from his record. f. At enclosure (2) is an advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps which notes that the NJP entries were made in accordance with regulations and the entries properly set forth the fact that the appeal was approved. Accordingly, the Board concludes that all documentation concerning the NJP of 18 November 1998 and the appeal should be removed from both...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07166-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 January to 2 February 1996. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 30 July 2002 with enclosures.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.In concluding that no further correction to your fitness report record...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08128-97
member's petition revealed the report to be a not observed because of the member's status as a student. The report contains the required comment in Subj: L , USN, d. Further review of the member's headquarters record revealed a report for the period of 1 July 1996 to 31 January 1997. front of the document is reflected. The report on file is incomplete as only the Since the member included a e. Review of Pers-322 selection board support files revealed an advanced message was sent to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04372-02
your back condition to Navy or Marine Corps officials after you underwent spinal disc surgery in 1990. The Board noted that although you suffered acute exacerbations of your back condition during periods of military duty in 1997 and 1999, you did not sustain any significant trauma to your spine during those , and there was permanent aggravation of the preexisting periods, you were not “injured” The exacerbations of your condition, one condition during those periods of military duty. VASRD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08332-98
They also considered the evidence considered at your nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings, and your counsel’s undated rebuttal letter. The punishment imposed upon Petitioner and Petitioner does not deny the In reviewing Petitioner's case, however, Accordingly, we recommend that Petitioner's request for 7 . The uncontroverted matter of fact relative to removal of the fitness report Unless and until The Board's opinion, 4. vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a...