Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07561-06
Original file (07561-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00





 CRS
 Docket No: 7561-06
          1 November 2006
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to provision of title 10 State Code, section 1552.                 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session considered your application on 1 November 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 15 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 existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection the Board 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.
                                                              



                                                               Sincerely,




                                                               W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                                               Executive Director
                                                               

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                                             3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-n 103


 IN REPLY REFER TO
1040
MMER/RE 




MEMORANDUM FOR THE       EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE
         SUBJ: RECODE
End:     (1) NAVMC 118(12)
 (2) NAVMC 118(13)
(3) NAVMC 118(11)
          (4) XXXX DD Form 149 of 19 Jun 06
1. XXXXX service record has been reviewed and it has been determined that his reenlistment code of RE-3C was correctly assigned. The reenlistment code was assigned based on his overall record of performance and means that he was not eligible for reenlistment at the time of separation and the disqualifying factor is not covered by another reenlistment code.
2. XXXXX was discharged on December 2, 1983 by reason of unsatisfactory performance of duties. The disciplinary portion of his service record indicates he received one nonjudicial punishment and one Summary Court-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for deficiencies that include: Unauthorized absence; being drunk while on duty; and being drunk and disorderly in a public place. It is noted that XXXX signed an official service book entry acknowledging the assignment of an RE-3C reenlistment code; enclosures (1) through (3) pertain.
3.       After 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 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 (4) is returned for final action.


         Review Branch Evaluation
 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 06164-06

    Original file (06164-06.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 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...

  • 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 | 06160-06

    Original file (06160-06.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 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...

  • 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 | 05181-06

    Original file (05181-06.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 6 June 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07814-06

    Original file (07814-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    20370-5100 CRSDocket No: 7814-068 November 2006This is in reference to our application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 155A three-member panel of he Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05351-06

    Original file (05351-06.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 12 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 | CY2006 | 05803-06

    Original file (05803-06.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 30 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...