DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
2 NAVY ANNE
X
RECORD
S
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
WMP
Docket No:
18 October 2002
3909-02
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 17 October 2002.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
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 found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 4 October
1996 for four years as a seaman (E-3) after three years of prior
naval service. The record reflects that you were advanced to
second class petty officer (E-5) on 16 June 2000.
Your record reflects on 15 March 2000 that you received an
adverse enlisted performance evaluation for the period of 16
June 1999 to 15 March 2000.
adverse marks of 1.0 in the marking category of quality of work
and 2.0 in the categories of military bearing and character,
personal job accomplishment and initiative and leadership.
overall evaluation mark was 2.29.
recommended for advancement or retention.
officer stated that you were
because her personal desire to terminate active duty outweighs
In this evaluation you received
"not always dependable and reliable
Additionally, you were not
The commanding
The
He further stated that you were "counseled
her performance."
numerous times for failure to follow division procedures and
basic military regulations,
directions and is not receptive to counseling" and "fails to
train and develop junior subordinate."
conveniently misunderstands
Additionally, you received an adverse enlisted performance
evaluation for the period of 16 March to 16 June 2000.
this period, you received adverse marks of 1.0 in the category
of quality of work and a 2.0 in the categories of leadership and
job accomplishment/initiative.
You were again not recommended for advancement or retention.
Your commanding officer stated that you "frequently were not
dependable and reliable because of her desire to terminate
active duty outweighed her commitment to
you were "counseled numerous times for failure to follow
division procedures and basis military regulations, conveniently
misunderstands directions and is not receptive to counseling."
The overall evaluation was 2.43.
DIA's mission" and that
During
On 12 July 2000, at your request,
discharge to attend an educational facility.
were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
concerning the
advised that you were ineligible to reenlist.
assignment'of an RE-4 reenlistment code and
you received an honorable
At that time, you
You were counseled
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors such as your contention that
you were not aware of the limitations of your reenlistment code.
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 reenlist.
application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and votes of the members
Accordingly, your
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board.
it is important to keep in mind that
You are entitled to have
In this regard,
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2000 | 08102-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 26 May 1989. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that she was not discharged on 20 May 1989 but continued to serve on active duty until 22 September 1989 when she was released from active duty with her...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09607-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. reenlistment code was correctly assigned as it reflected your overall performance during this period of active service and the fact that you were not recommended for either retention or advancement. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00303-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, Your allegations of error and injustice were 8 May 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 13-month period documenting three counselings and problems with your government credit card debt provided sufficient justify- cation for a non-recommendation for retention and assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02125-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 May 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. leadership and supervisory During your second tour you On 21 January 1971 you received a The record shows that on 16 February 1971 You were You were Character of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07482-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2008. 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. During the period from 15 June 2001 to 15 June 2002 you received a series of adverse performance evaluations from different raters and reporting seniors.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03438-06
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 mate:rial error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy for four years on 25 January 1995 at age 20. On 24 January 1999 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08743-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. You believe there was disparate treatment because the chief petty officer only received a punitive letter of reprimand and was retained in the Navy,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02015-03
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 next evaluation for the period 16 March to 10 November 2000 is also adverse in that you were not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy. You state in your application, in effect, that your performance of duty was excellent and your undiagnosed medical condition should not...