Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01428-06
Original file (01428-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                                                                        CRS
 Docket No: 1428-06
10 May 2006







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 10 May 2006. 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 10 February 2006, a copy of which is attached.

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. In this connection the Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and subsequent service in the Army National Guard. Nevertheless, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. The Board also concluded that the RE-4 reenlistment code was warranted given the three nonjudicial punishments you received while in the Marine Corps, and because you were issued a general discharge due to misconduct. An RE-4 reenlistment code is required under such circumstances. 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

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
                                             IN REPLY TO:
                                             1040
                                             MMER/RE
FEB 10 2006

 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
         NAVAL RECORDS
Subj: BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FORMER CORPORAL
 SUBJ: RECODE
         
Encl: (1)        Mr.xxxx         DD form 149 of 12 Dec 03
1. Recommend the petitioner’s reenlistment code remain unchanged. Mr. Xxxx service record has been reviewed and it has been determined that there is not enough information in his record to arrive at a decision. Because there is not enough information, we cannot assume that the information, which led to assignment of the reenlistment code, was not factual at the time of discharge. Therefore, we are returning the petitioner’s request without any action being taken. If the petitioner can provide any official correspondence, we will gladly readdress his request
2. Enclosure (1) is returned for final action.



Head, Performance 1 Evaluation
Review Branch
Personnel Management Division
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01423-06

    Original file (01423-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 10 February 2006, a copy of which is attached. Therefore, we are returning the petitioner’s request without any action being taken.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08063-06

    Original file (08063-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing his failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 and 1995 Reserve Major Selection Boards, so he will be eligible for current reappointment as. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Cooper, McBride and Schultz, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 November 2006, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07349-06

    Original file (07349-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 September 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 15 June 2006, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03387-08

    Original file (03387-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2008. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09603-10

    Original file (09603-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code (RE-4) be changed. f. Enclosure (5) is an advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps stating that based upon Petitioner's disciplinary infractions in 2006 he was correctly assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06257-06

    Original file (06257-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 11 July 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11025-06

    Original file (11025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board also found the reviewing officer gave credence to the observed evaluation when he concurred with the reporting senior’s report and offered an appraisal of his own.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20040704 (TD), covering 34 days, the Board found that the reporting senior, LtCol H---, extended the annual report that he completed in the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06932-06

    Original file (06932-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 1 September 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05343-06

    Original file (05343-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 12 June 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05181-06

    Original file (05181-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 6 June 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...