Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 07915-04
Original file (07915-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BHOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                                                                        TRG
Docket No: 7915-04
29 April 2005

MR XXXXX

Dear Mr. XXX:
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 26 April 2005. 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 enlisted in the Navy on 22 July 1998 and then served without incident for almost six years. During your service, you were advanced to hospitalman (HN; E-3). In your last evaluation, you received no marks below 3.0, and were recommended for promotion and retention in the Navy. You were released from active duty on 25 June 2004 with an honorable characterization of service and were assigned an RE-3R reenlistment code.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-3R reenlistment code when a service member is still serving in pay grade E-3 upon completion of an extended periods of active duty and has not passed an advancement examination. There is no evidence in the record, showing that you passed an examination. An RE-3R means that the service member is recommended for a probationary reenlistment during which he/she must be advanced to petty officer third class and it is not considered to be a derogatory reenlistment code.
You served for almost six years without being advanced to petty officer third class and an RE-3R reenlistment code was authorized by Navy regulations. Since you have been treated no differently
 than others in your situation, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the RE-3R reenlistment code.

Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.





It is regretted that the circumstances of your case 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



























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02529-02

    Original file (02529-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel -of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 August 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. you were not advanced to HN until 16 April 1989, which did not allow you much time to be advanced to HM3 prior to your release An RE-3R reenlistment code is not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03581-02

    Original file (03581-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    growth criteria, officer third class, be serving in examination for advancement to recommended for advancement, officer in the current enlistment and be currently recommended for advancement to CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable It appears to the Board that Petitioner was issued an action. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03429-09

    Original file (03429-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. If not, the individual must be assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code, The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your period of Satisfactory service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00451-05

    Original file (00451-05.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed. In order to receive an RE-3R reenlistment code, a Sailor must be recommended for advancement or be promotable. Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s record does not warrant the worst reenlistment code of RE-4, and that code should be changed to RE-3R.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04232-06

    Original file (04232-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 4 September 2001 and served for more than three years without disciplinary...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00085-02

    Original file (00085-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Naval Reserve filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 7 December 1989. The page 9 shows that in the evaluation for the period ending 7 December 1989, he was assigned marginal marks of 3.0 in the categories of reliability and personal behavior. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08198-04

    Original file (08198-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Mr. Leeman, Mr. Pfeiffer and Ms. McCormick, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 August 2005 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Petitioner subsequently enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve, On 14 September 2001 he reported for active duty and served for one year. Therefore, Petitioner’s record should be corrected to show that on 11...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03837-10

    Original file (03837-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ~ application on 26 January 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 reentry code is authorized when an individual is discharged at the expiration of his term of active obligated service...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04163-01

    Original file (04163-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, given the circumstances, especially his fine performance of duty, the Board concludes that an RE-1 reenlistment code should be assigned in this case as an exception to policy. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 24 July 2000 he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's naval record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01181-10

    Original file (01181-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 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. On 18 June 1993, you were honorably discharged from active duty while serving in pay grade E-3.