DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
ELP
Docket No. 7475-01
28 February 2002
Dear
-
:
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.
Your allegations of error and injustice were
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
27 February 2002.
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.
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.
The record reflects that you were
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 18 September
1978 for four years at age 17.
advanced to SMSN (E-3) and served until 19 October 1980, when you
and five other Sailors from two different ships became involved
in a scuffle with five Royal Navy Sailors, one of which was
stabbed in the abdomen.
misdemeanor assault.
Royal Navy Sailor with a knife.
commanding officer reported to appropriate authorities that you
and the other Sailor had been tried and you were fined $366.50.
The other Sailor admitted to assaulting a
You and another Sailor were charged with
On 21 October 1980 the
On 3 November 1980 the Chief of Naval Personnel advised the
command that it planned to take no separation action on the
foregoing matter.
further misconduct could result in processing for discharge under
other than honorable conditions.
You were to be retained and warned that any
You served without further incident until 22 June 1981 when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your
appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order.
Punishment imposed was a forfeiture of $300, 30 days of extra
duty, and a suspended reduction in rate to MSSA (E-2).
you were advanced to SM3 (E-4) on 16 August 1981.
However,
The Enlisted Performance Record (page 9) indicates that the
performance evaluation on 30 June 1982 and the one submitted
incident to your release from active duty assigned adverse marks
of 2.8 in the marking category of professional performance, and
On 7 September 1982
you were not recommended for reenlistment.
you were honorably released from active duty, transferred to the
Naval Reserve, and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
honorably discharged upon completion of your military obligation
on 17 September 1984.
You were
Your contention
"mess" with the records belonging to black Sailors
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals not recommended for reenlistment.
that the ship's legal officer was racially biased and had
threatened to
is neither supported by the evidence of record nor by any
The Board
evidence submitted in support of your application.
concluded that a civil conviction, an NJP, and two adverse marks
in professional performance during the last four months of your
non-
enlistment provided sufficient justification to warrant a
recommendation for reenlistment and assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code.
reenlistment code was proper and no change is warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The Board thus concluded that the
The names and
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. 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.
You are entitled to have
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06265-98
advanced to SK3 (E-4) on 16 June 1977. enlistment, you completed an alcohol rehabilitation program. The performance evaluation for the period 19 On 11 September 1981 you were again counseled concerning your abuse of alcohol. days later your recommendation for advancement was formally withdrawn because of a lack of professional and military skills and alcohol abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07957-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval and medical records, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02363-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2010. You enlisted in the Navy on 4 August 1978 at age i9 and immediately began a period of active duty. 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 | CY2011 | 02748-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 January 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 06102-98
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To : Secretary of the Navy TRG Docket No: 6102-98 24 August 1999 D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E N A V Y BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 2 NAVY ANNEX Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF - Ref: (a) Title 1 0 U.S.C. 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 previous general discharge and RE-4...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12874-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02063-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 2011. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02433-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. The VA granted you a disability rating of 10% for a hiatal hernia with psychophysiological gastrointestinal disorder, history of peptic ulcer, history of cholecystectomy; and a separate 10% rating for migraine headaches. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07207-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 2011. 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 this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02125-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval “Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 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. On 26 April 1982, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to misconduct~frequent involvement.