DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
TRG
Docket No: 10639-02
2 May 2003
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 oE Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 22 April 2003. Your allegations of error and
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.
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 for two years on 4 March 1997 as a
petty officer second class (OS2; E-5). On 10 February 1977 you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of
unauthorized absence, disobedience, dereliction of duty and
making a false official statement. The punishment imposed
included a reduction in rate, which was suspended. The
performance evaluation for the period 16 March 1998 to 10
February 1999 is adverse with an individual trait average of 1.86
and you were not recommended for promotion or retention in the
Navy. The commanding officer's comments, in part, are as
follows :
.... (He) has demonstrated a blatant disregard for
authority, evidenced in his unauthorized absence from
duty. His performance continues to uroller-coastern
based on (his) convenience. (He) was formally
counseled on 16 April 1998, 2 June 1998, 4 June 1998,
12 July 1998, 16 July 1998, 25 July 1998, '15 August
1998, 10 November 1998, and 7 February 1999 regarding
specific performance shortfalls. ...."
S-ubsequently, the ending date of the evaluation was extended to
coincide with your discharge from the Navy. You were honorably
discharged at the expiration of your enlistment on 3 March 1999.
At that time, you had completed 16 years, 9 month,s and 23 days of
active service.
The Board noted that you received NJP on 10 February 1999 only
about 22 days before the expiration of your enlistment. Further,
the final performance evaluation describes persistent performance
problems from 16 March 1998. The Board concluded that the NJP
and adverse performance evaluation were sufficient to support the
denial of your reenlistment and assignment of the RE-4
reenlistment code. Accordingly, your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the ane el will be
furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your cabe 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
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 | 04169-01
They also considered your counsel's letters dated 25 June 2001 with enclosures, 25 July 2001 with enclosure, and 23 March 2002. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the reporting senior's action or that the reporting senior acted for an illegal or improper purpose. In this case, the reporting senior makes it clear in references (b) and (c) and his endorsement to the member's statement his reason for submitting the reports as they did.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05563-01
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. During the period 16 March 1996 to 13 May 1998, you You reenlisted in the Navy on 13 April 1990 for five years and subsequently extended that enlistment on three occasions totaling 39 months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03392-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2002. The members of the chain of command were present, made statements and were available to answer questions . He then told LT HI who then called Ms. D. The Board also considered the statement of the retired chief petty officer who stated that you were not derelict in your duties while you were treating him and that he did not see any disrespect.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07450-06
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 3 June 1999 at age 18. You were honorably released from active duty, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10687-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval | Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 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. On 4 January 1999, you received NJP for failure to pay your government credit card bill.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09675-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2003. 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 | 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 | 01795-01
The reason for the removal of this report is In your application you are requesting reenlistment in the Marine Corps, a change in the reenlistment code, payment of full separation pay and/or early retirement from the Marine Corps. The Board can correct a record, but the decision to authorize reenlistment is solely a matter within the prerogative of the Marine Corps. The Board believed that the adverse fitness report for the period ending 1 February 1999 and the recommendation that you not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05501-98
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. At that time you were not recommended for retention and were assigned 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.