DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
WMP
Docket No:
27 January 2003
9607-02
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 15 January 2003.
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 Naval Reserve on 14
November 1997 for six years after almost two months of prior
active service and eight years of reserve service.
The record shows that you actively participated as a member of
the Naval Reserve for about four years.
reserve service you received four enlisted performance
evaluations covering from 15 September 1997 until 15 March 1991.
In these evaluations you were recommended for advancement and
retention with overall trait averages of 3.29, 3.29, 3.43. and
3.86, respectively.
Europe you were awarded a Navy Achievement Medal.
While on active duty with Naval Forces
During this period of
You were recalled for a period of extended active duty on 6
November 2001.
On 15 January 2002, you requested a hardship
discharge due to your inability, while on active duty, to
provide for the care of your dependent children.
Although the
separation documents concerning this separation were not filed
it is clear that you submitted this
in your service record,
request and that it was approved by your commanding officer.
In this evaluation, you received adverse
Your record further reflects that you received an adverse
enlisted performance evaluation for the period of 11 December
2001 to 18 January 2002 to document your substandard performance
while on active duty.
marks of 1.0 in the marking categories of quality of work,
military bearing/character, personal job
accomplishment/initiative, teamwork, and leadership.
overall evaluation mark was 1.57.
that you had been an administrative burden, disrupted good order
and discipline in your the department, not been receptive to
orders and assignments, and emphasized displeasure with active
duty assignment to your superiors and subordinates.
The reporting senior stated
The
18.January 2002 you received a general discharge by reason of
On
hardship, and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board did not consider the characterization of your
discharge since you have not exhausted your administrative
remedies by first petitioning to the Naval Discharge Review
Board.
separation and/or the characterization of your service.
Enclosed is a DD Form 293 used for applying to that board.
That Board is authorized to change the reason for
However, the Board concluded that you were
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors such as your contention that
you should have been demobilized vice being discharged by reason
of hardship.
discharged by reason of hardship based on your written request,
which was approved by your commanding officer.
The hardship
discharge was appropriate based on your request and your
dependency situation at that time.
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.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
Furthermore, your
2
’a
You are entitled to have
1; 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.
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.
it is important to keep in mind that
In this regard,
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04079-04
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 Navy on 13 June 2001 as a petty officer second class (DK2; E-5). However,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03909-02
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. 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...
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 | 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 | 03932-01
You were The Board believed that a record of three consecutive marginal and adverse performance evaluations was sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code, despite the recommendation for retention contained in the last performance evaluation of record. the Board concludes that if a performance evaluation for the period 15 June 1997 until your release from active duty on 6 October 1997 had been available, it would have been adverse. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03029-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2000. 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. You have submitted evidence showing that the In support of your case you have submitted Apparently, this The Board concluded that a record of three...
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 | CY2002 | 08298-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 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. reporting to this command member has had 2 larceny convictions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02448-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 May 2006. 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. A minimum average conduct mark of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of separation.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06648-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2002. 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...