Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07450-06
Original file (07450-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 SJN
 Docket No: 07450-06
26 January 2007



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 23 January 2007. 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 3 June 1999 at age 18. You served well for more than three years and were advanced to paygrade E-4. However, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 22 January 2003 and 23 December 2005 for larceny and unknown offense. On
21 March 2004, suspended punishment from the second NJP was vacated due to continued misconduct.
On 24 March 2006 you received a substandard performance evaluation covering the period from 16 March 2005 to 15 March 2006 in which you were not recommended for retention. This evaluation assigned an adverse overall rating of 1.2 with adverse marks of 1.0 in six out of seven marking categories. You submitted a statement in rebuttal to that evaluation on 13 April 2006 and redress of wrongs on 23 May 2006. You were honorably released from active duty, and were assigned a RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, time in service, the rebuttal to the adverse evaluation, the redress of wrongs, your time in service, and the issues you had with your chain-of-command as stated in your application. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code because of the two NJP’s and vacation action, and the adverse evaluation which recommended that you not be allowed to reenlist. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is separated at the expiration of his term of active obligated service and is not recommended for reenlistment. 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,


ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
 Acting Executive Director

























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00272-07

    Original file (00272-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 July 2006 your commanding officer recommended to the Navy Personnel Command (NAVPERSCOM) that you not be reenlisted. However, given the available evidence, the Board concluded that the commanding officer acted reasonably in concluding that you committed the offense and that nonjudicial punishment was appropriate. 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 | CY2006 | 09003-06

    Original file (09003-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Complainant alleges that:(1) On September 22, 2005, respondent improperly vacated suspension of complainant’s earlier nonjudicial punishment. He therefore denied complainant’s request for relief as to the vacation proceedings.SUBJECT: Complaint of Wrongs Under Article 138, UCMJ, ICO• With respect to complainant’s request for admiral’s mast, the GCMA determined that the request should not have been denied at the command level. The investigating office concluded that complainant had violated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05819-06

    Original file (05819-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member’s statement and the reporting senior’s endorsement are both included in the member’s record. In this case, the reporting senior assigned the member a promotion recommendation of “Promotable,” which in no way equates to deficient performance. Concur with comments and recommendations found in reference (a)2 After examinationDD Form 149, we find no request that is actionable by PERS-480does not request that her failures of selection be removed nor does she request a special...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10350-08

    Original file (10350-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    concurred with the rd also considered your rebuttal letter dated ith enclosure. The Board could not find the reviewing officer (RO) lacked sufficient lobservation to evaluate you, noting observation need not be direct. 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 | CY2006 | 08030-06

    Original file (08030-06.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.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.You enlisted in the Navy on 29 October 2001 at age 20. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01496-06

    Original file (01496-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further impliedly requested removing all documentation of your nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 22 June 2005 and the vacation of suspension of your reduction to pay grade E-4 on 19 August 2005.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, consideredyour application on 7 December 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07374-10

    Original file (07374-10.pdf) 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 2011. The rec ra reflects that on 17 May 2007 you were subsequently found guilty of only one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman for the period cited “between on or about November 2004 and on or about May 2005." The Board concluded that your commanding officer's decision to impose the foregoing NUP, and the punishment imposed,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08177-01

    Original file (08177-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You then reenlisted for six years on 9 March The record reflects that you were advanced to TM2 (E-5) on 16 January 1980 and served without incident until 6 May 1982 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10583-06

    Original file (10583-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your previous case, docket number 7199-06, was denied on 7 September 2006. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2008. 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 | CY2005 | 08967-05

    Original file (08967-05.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his endorsement on your appeal CSG2 analyzed the evidence concerning the charge of indecent assault and stated that he believed a preponderance of the evidence supported his finding of guilty. He conceded that the evaluation at issue was erroneously prepared and indicated that action would be taken to file a corrected evaluation but strongly recommended that your application for advancement to chief petty officer be denied. The opinion concluded by stating that given the no misconduct...