Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05682-06
Original file (05682-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2037O~ 100

                                                       SMW
                                                                                           Docket No: 5682-06
                                                                                          20 October 2006

This s in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United State Code, Section 1552.
A thr e e-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Recor d s, sitting in executive session, considered your appli c ation on 18 October 2006. Your allegations of error and injus t ice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regul a tions and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your a pplicat i on, together with all material submitted in support there f, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and p o licies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory op inion (furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluations Review Branch, 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 ~r injustice. In this regard, the Board substantially concur r ed with the comments contained in the advisory Opinion.
Accord i ngly, your application has been denied. The names and votes f or the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favora b le action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board r econsider its decision upon submission of new and material eviden c e or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In thi s 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 existe n ce of probable material error or injustice.

                                                                        Sincerely,

                                                                        W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                                                        Executive Director
Enclos u re
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

                                                                                          IN REFER TO:
 MM ER/RE

MEMOR AN DUM FOR THE E XECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
         SUBJ RECODE
(1) Advisory Opinion
End:     (1) NAVMC 118(11)
 (2)      NAVMC 1 l 8 (ll)a
(3)      NAVNC 118(12)
(4)      DD Form 149 of 17 Apr 06

1.       service record has been reviewed and it has been d e termined that at the time of separation he was assigned a reenl is tment code of RE-4, which means that he was not recomm e nded for reenlistment. The reenlistment code was correctly assigned and was based on his overall record.
2.       received an honorable discharge on November 16, 2001 review of his service record indicates that he was counsel e d concerning misuse and abuse of the Government American Express credit card, failure to follow established maintenance procedure ,and not being recommended for reenlistment. The disciplinary portion of his record shows he received one nonjudi c ial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for failure to obey a regulation. Enclosures (1) through (3) pertain
3.       Aft r a review of all relevant information, this Headquarters concurs in the professional evaluation of qualifications for reenlistment at the time of separation. Once a code is corr e ctly assigned it is not routinely changed or upgraded as a resul ts of events that occur after separation or based merely on the m assage of time.
4.       Enclosure (4) is returned for final action.


Head, Performance Eva1u~tion
 Review Branch
Personnel Management Division
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2006 | 05415-06

    Original file (05415-06.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 | CY2006 | 06138-06

    Original file (06138-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100 CRSDocket No: 6138-0621 September 2006This 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 f or Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 September 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00630-06

    Original file (00630-06.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 an advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is enclosed.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 | 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 | 05209-06

    Original file (05209-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Branch, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07561-06

    Original file (07561-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session considered your application on 1 November 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. XXXXX service record has been reviewed and it has been determined that his reenlistment code of RE-3C was correctly assigned.

  • 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 | 06976-06

    Original file (06976-06.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 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...