DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X
2 NAVY ANNE
S
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
TRG
Docket No:
23 February 2001
2899-00
.-
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 21 February 2001.
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, 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.
The Board was unable to
its review based on the
submitted.
obtain your service record and conducted
documentation from the record that you
You then served without incident for about three
During this period, on 16 December 1983, you were
The available records shows that you enlisted in the Navy on 1
October 1980.
years.
advanced to SK2 (E-5).
period 7 December 1983 to 10 April 1984 you were assigned
marginal marks of 3.2 in the categories of initiative and.
reliability.
The evaluation comments state, in part, as follows:
In the performance evaluation
for*the
.
. her "short-timer" attitude has seriously hampered
.
. . . with
the smooth operation of the supply function.
the proper attitude and increased self-motivation (she)
could have become an excellent independent duty
Due
storekeeper and a positive asset to this command.
to the character of her separation she cannot be
recommended for retention in the Naval service.
The documentation setting forth the facts and circumstances which
led to your discharge are unknown and you have not provided a
However, it appears that you were
copy of your DD Form 214,
honorably discharged on 10 April 1984.
recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
At that time you were not
"Don't ask, don't tell
policyVV.
As indicated,
In your application you state that you should not have been
discharged because of your sexual preference and there was a
violation of the
the documentation to support your discharge processing is
unavailable.
current regulations for homosexual conduct, an RE-4 reenlistment
The Board concluded that the final adverse
code is required.
performance evaluation was sufficient to support the assignment
of the RE-4 reenlistment code.
been denied.
will be furnished upon request.
The names and votes of the members of the panel
However, if an individual is discharged under
Accordingly, your application has
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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
Executive Director
PFEIFFER
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03056-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted four to zero in favor of an other than honorable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01807-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 2009. 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 | CY2011 | 05662 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 February 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. On 19 October 1984, administrative separation action was initiated by reason of misconduct (drug abuse (use)).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03300-01
recommended for advancement, an RE-4 reenlistment code was the only code that could be assigned. differently than others released from active duty under similar circumstances, the Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned 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 | CY2008 | 00805-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. Finally, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor, serving in paygrade E-2, is not recommended for reenlistment because of unsatisfactory performance. 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 | CY2004 | 04659-04
On 20 August 1979 you were released from active duty and assigned to a Marine Corps Reserve unit. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE—4.Character of service is based, in part, on one’s conduct and proficiency averages, both of which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. A review of his service record indicates that he was counseled concerning repeated tardiness to morning muster, positive urinalysis results indicating illegal use of THC and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01935-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 2010. On 13 October 1983, you received your third NJP for an additional UA period. On 27 January 1984, you received the OTH discharge due to misconduct (drug abuse).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08590-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval and health records, applicable statutes, regulations and policies. On 3 August 1984, you were counseled regarding UA and disobeying lawful orders, and warned that further misconduct could result in disciplinary action or administrative separation. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04028-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2013. 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. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03831-01
The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 9 February 1984 at the age of 18. concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of your narrative reason for separation or reenlistment code because of your drug related misconduct and your failure to maintain a satisfactory drilling status. your case, the Board concluded your discharge, narrative reason for separation, and reenlistment code were proper as...