DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 7482-06
20 February 2008
Dear
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 12 February 2008. 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.
You enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 29 December 1995 and
reported for extended active duty on 8 February 1996. You then
served in a satisfactory manner for about five years. On 22 May
2001 you were counseled concerning inconsistent performance, poor
impulse control, unresolved development plan for qualification
attainment and less than satisfactory job performance. You were
warned that further deficiencies could lead to disciplinary
action and/or administrative separation.
During the period from 15 June 2001 to 15 June 2002 you received
a series of adverse performance evaluations from different raters
and reporting seniors. In the last evaluation during this
period, you received an adverse mark of 1.0 in professional
knowledge and marginal marks of 2.0 in several other categories
and you were not recommended for promotion and retention. During
the two evaluation during the period from 16 June 2002 to 7
August 2003, you received marks of 3.0 in every category but were
not recommended for retention. You were released from active
duty on 7 August 2003 with your service characterized as
honorable with 7 years and 6 months of active duty. At that
time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned
an RE-4 reenlistment code. Since you were still serving as a
petty officer third class it appears that you were at or
approaching length of service limitations for individuals serving
in paygrade E-4. The narrative reason for separation is non-
retention on active duty and you were paid separation pay in the
amount of $8,208.00.
You contend in your application, that one chief petty officer did
not like you and insured that you were not promoted or retained
in the Navy. You desire a change in the reenlistment code and a
change in the reason for your discharge. You believe that the
narrative reason for separation should be completion of required
active duty.
As indicated the record shows that there were several different
raters and reporting seniors on your evaluations. All of whom
agreed that your performance was unsatisfactory. Therefore, your
contention that all of your problems were caused by one
individual is not supported by the record. Further, since you
were not advanced beyond paygrade E-4, high year tenure
regulations required that you be denied further service. The
Board concluded that the decision to deny your reenlistment was
proper.
Concerning the narrative reason for separation, non-retention on
active duty, is one of the narrative reasons that require the
payment of separation pay. Since you have been paid separation
pay and have been treated no differently than many others in your
Situation, the Board could not find an error in the reason for
your discharge.
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,
oo 7
W. DEAN
Executive Arédtor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03278-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2008. On 19 April 2007 you signed a performance evaluation in which you were not recommended for retention. 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 retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09514-05
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. 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 | CY2001 | 05563-01
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. During the period 16 March 1996 to 13 May 1998, you You reenlisted in the Navy on 13 April 1990 for five years and subsequently extended that enlistment on three occasions totaling 39 months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04708-01
Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 12 December 2001. 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. failure to pay a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03796-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. A review In this military bearing/character, and Your record further reflects that you received an adverse special enlisted performance evaluation for the period of 16 June to 12 November 2001 to document the removal...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02853-03
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100TJR Docket No: 2853-03 15 August 2003From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Furthermore, both reporting seniors stated that Petitioner was an exemplary leader with superb performance, and that the only reason he was not recommended for advancement was because of his failure to obtain his ESWS qualifications. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03909-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code was assigned based on your performance during your last year on active duty, and that you were counseled concerning the fact that you were not eligible to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02425-07
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.You reenlisted in the Navy on 3 June 2003 with about four years of active service on a prior...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09610-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2008. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09104-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 2008. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code because of the adverse discharge evaluation which recommended that you not be allowed to reenlist. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...