DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
TRG
Docket No:
11 April 2001
2202-00
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 10 April 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.
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.
22.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 11 October 1988
The available records show that you served without
at age
incident through the evaluation period ending on 28 June 1991.
There are no further evaluations available to the Board.
record shows that on 25 November 1991,
(E-4) was withheld due to your failure to demonstrate petty
officer qualities.
and you were advanced in rate on 31 December 1991.
February 1992 you received nonjudicial punishment for an
unspecified period of unauthorized absence.
imposed included a reduction
released from active duty on
characterized as honorable.
recommended for reenlistment
reenlistment code.
discharge at the end of your
in rate to YNSN (E-3).
You were
5 October 1992 with your service
At that time, you were not
and were assigned an RE-4
The
your advancement to YN3
You were subsequently issued an honorable
military obligation.
However, you apparently overcame the problem
On 28
The punishment
The Board assumed that if the final performance evaluation was
available, it would show that you were not recommended for
reenlistment and would set forth the reasons for that
recommendation.
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.
the counseling entry temporarily
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00471-01
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 | CY2002 | 06328-00
He stated that although your enlistment would expire You were discharged In In your application you are appealing the reductions in rate from ET2 to ETSN. The Board noted that the discharge processing accordance with regulations and you did not contest the discharge by requesting an administrative discharge board. concluded that you were fortunate to have an honorable discharge since a general discharge was directed.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00959-01
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 | CY2002 | 07478-01
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. 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 | 02266-01
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 May 2001. Since you have been treated no differently than others discharged for that reason, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the 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 | CY2006 | 09544-06
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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 7 August 1989 at age 18. On 6 March 1992 you were so discharged and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12250 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 2012. 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge due to your COSO: Furthermore, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02518-01
considered your application on 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. discharge was improper because it was based on only one incident However, the Board also noted that at in 21 months of service. 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 | 02987-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. marks assigned for the period 1 February 1992 to 25 July 1992 are not entered on the page 9. In addition, the page 9 clearly shows that you were not eligible for reenlistment on 25 July 1992. that your performance either...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07257-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 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...