Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06138-06
Original file (06138-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
                                                       WASHINGTON DC 2O37O -5100


                                                                                          CRS
                                              Docket No: 6138-06
                                                                                           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 f or 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 10 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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection the Boa r d 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.
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.

                                                                                 Sincerel y

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
                                                                                
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 221 34-s 103


                                    IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                           1040
                                                                                           MM ER/RE
                                                                                           JUL 10 2006



MEMORANDUM FOR THE       EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
         SUBJ : RECODE
         End:     (1)      NA~C     118(11)
                  (2)      NAVMC    ll8(ll)a
                  (3)      NAVNC    118(11)b of 6 Dec 02
                  (4)      NAVMC    118(12) of 15 Oct 00
                  (5)      NAVMC    10132
                  (6)      NAVMC 101 32 of 6 Dec 02
                  (7) DD Form 149 of 27 Jun 05
         

         1.       s ervice record has been reviewed 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 record.
2        was honorably discharged on February 3, 2005 by reason o~ completion of required active service. A review of his service record indicates that he was counseled concerning not being recommended for promotion; lack of judgment; disrespect toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO); assault; and failure to obey a lawful order. The disciplinary portion of his record shows he received two nonjudicial punishments under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for offenses that included assaulting a fellow Marine by grabbing and pushing him, failure to obey a lawful order and being disrespectful in language toward an NCO. Enclosures (1) through (6) pertain.





3.       After a review of all relevant information, this he adguarters concurs in the professional evaluation qualif i cations for reenlistment at the time of 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 (7) is returned for final action.


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

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 05943-06

    Original file (05943-06.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. 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. The reenlistment code was correctly assigned and was based on his overall record.2.

  • 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 | 12456-08

    Original file (12456-08.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 the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Branch (MMER/RE), a copy of which is attached. Subsequently, on 23 January 2001, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due...

  • 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 | 05767-06

    Original file (05767-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 26 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.The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 30 June 1997. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 09032-07

    Original file (09032-07.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 the Headquarters, Marine Corps, Performance Evaluation Review Branch dated 20 March 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07550-06

    Original file (07550-06.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 16 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...