DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX ,
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS
. Docket No: .6436-06
_ 22 November 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 25 October 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.
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 29 June 2001
after about four years of prior active service. The record
reflects that on 30 July 2004 you received nonjudicial punishment
for an unauthorized absence, drunk driving, incapacitated for
duty, and drunk on duty. In your last enlisted evaluation which
started at 16 March 2004 you were not recommended for
_ reenlistment. On 28 August 2004, while serving in pay grade E-4,
you were honorably discharged with a narrative reason for
separation of non-retention on active duty. At that time, you
were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.
Applicable regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to non-
retention on active duty. Clearly; your disciplinary action and
last evaluation were sufficient to support the reenlistment code.
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 your 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 P
Executive or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04516-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2009. 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. Given your misconduct, alcohol rehabilitation failure, and the fact that the separation authorities were ordered to issue you an RE-4...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4098-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ‘application on 26 March 2014. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all .potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, prior honorable service, and desire to change your reenlistment code for. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that - _@ presumption of regularity attaches_to all official records= “Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06663-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100 RSDocket No: 6663-06 7 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 September 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00714-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 December 2009. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your RE-4 reenlistment code, given your record of two NUP’s for misconduct. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08513-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04231-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of ybur application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 19 January 2007, you were honorably released from active duty due a reduction in force and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05872-01
The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 5 November 1993 for three years as a PNSN (E-3). At the time of your separation, E-4 was 10 years. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00887-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03406-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2009. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06699-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 2010. 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. 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...