Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05311-06
Original file (05311-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
                   WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                             CRS
                                             Docket No: 5311-06
                                                                                  21 September 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 20 September 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 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 existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for separation should be changed, since you did not ask f or such consideration and you have not exhausted your administrative remedy by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). You may apply to NDRB by submitting the attached DD Form 293.







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.


                                                                       
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director



Enclosures


























DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                                             3280 RUSSELL ROAD
          QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103



                                                      IN REPLY REFER TO:
                            1040
                                                                                           MMER/RE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE       EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FORMER
 SUBJ:    RECODE
End:     (1) NAVMC 10132
 (2)      NAVMC 118(13)
( 3) ]DD Form 149


1 service record has been rev i ewed and it has been determined that at the time of separation he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, which means that he was not recommended for reenlistment. The reenlistment code was correctly assigned and was based on his overall.
2.       received an under other than honorable conditions discharge on January 19, 2005 by reason of misconduct. The disciplinary portion of his record shows he received one nonjudicial punishment for unauthorized absence and one Summary Court-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for unauthorized absence and insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer. Enclosures (1) and (2) pertain.
3.       After a review of all relevant information, this Headquarters concurs in the professional evaluation of
 speciation’s for reenlistment at the time of separation. Once a code is correctly assigned it is not routinely changed or upgraded as a result of events that occur after separation or based merely on the passage of time.

4.       Enclosure (3) is returned for final action.





Similar Decisions

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07051-06

    Original file (07051-06.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 15 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 | 08064-06

    Original file (08064-06.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 31 August 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 | 09905-06

    Original file (09905-06.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 8 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 | CY2007 | 01829-07

    Original file (01829-07.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 14 February 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your rebuttal.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06655-06

    Original file (06655-06.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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for separation should be changed, since you did not ask for such consideration and you have not exhausted your administrative remedy by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05186-06

    Original file (05186-06.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, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04202-08

    Original file (04202-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary evidence 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 material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02448-06

    Original file (02448-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | 03682-06

    Original file (03682-06.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 19 April 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...