Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08044-06
Original file (08044-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 N AV Y ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



                                    TRG
Docket No: 8044-06
22 February 2008




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 reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 22 April 1997 for four years, which was later extended for 15 months. Subsequently, incidents of physical child/spouse abuse and emotional spouse abuse were substantiated with you being named as the offender.
Beginning in July 2002, there are a series of short term extensions while your reenlistment request was being processed. On 17 June 2003 Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) disapproved your reenlistment request, but authorized a final 60 day extension and the payment of one half separation pay. You were honorably discharged on 17 June 2003 and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. At that time, you had completed 17 years, 11 months and 26 days of active duty.
You point out in your application that if you had 18 years of service, the Marine Corps would have been forced to retain you on active duty until you qualified for retirement at the completion of 20 years of service. Since you were so close to having 18 years of active duty, you believe that an injustice has occurred and the record should be corrected to show that you were not discharged, but retained on active duty until you qualified for retirement.

It is clear that HQMC is authorized to approve or deny reenl i stments at its discretion. Since there is adverse matter in your record, the Board concluded that there was no abuse of discretion by HQMC. The Board noted that the numerous extensions were required so that your reenlistment request could be properly considered. Further, the final 60 day extension was only granted so that you could have a smooth transition to civilian life. In effect, the actions taken to extend your enlistment were to your advantage. Therefore, the Board concluded that the fact that you were only four days short of mandatory retention was not an injustice which would require that you be retained on active duty to qualify you for retirement.
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


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07415-00

    Original file (07415-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You are requesting reinstatement in the Marine Corps, promotion You to GYSGT and retirement with 20 years of active service. The Board was aware that in 1995 the Marine Corps was being very Further, selective concerning the reenlistment of the decision whether to allow reenlistment is a matter that falls within the discretion of the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval 2 record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08589-01

    Original file (08589-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, the Board believes that HQMC's suggestion Therefore, the Board concludes that Petitioner's record should be corrected by transferring sufficient retirement points from the excess over 50 in qualifying years into the three anniversary years ending on 14 July 1983, 14 July 1984 and 11 May 1992, to With this make those years qualifying for reserve retirement. correction, Petitioner will have 20 qualifying years and will be Since Petitioner is already eligible for retired pay at age...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02064-00

    Original file (02064-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record , From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps submitted an application to this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show that he was not discharged on 15 April 1998 but was retained in the Marine Corps until he qualified to retire. "has an alternate weight standard The fitness report 68" At that time, he...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06696-02

    Original file (06696-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the enlisted performance board initially recommended discharge, this decision was changed after you submitted evidence that you had met the weight standards. The fitness report for the period 13 September 1986 to 14 February 1987 states as follows:(He) is leaving the Marine Corps after nineteen years of dedicated service, including an extended tour in the Republic of Vietnam. Consequently, the Board concluded that a correction to your record to show that you retired from the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02877-08

    Original file (02877-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG Docket No: 2877-08 6 April 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD OF ‘gl Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.c. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the Marine Corps Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show, in effect, that she has status in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04356-00

    Original file (04356-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    At enclosure (l), an advisory opinion from the Reserve Affairs Division, Career Management Team (CMT), HQMC, states that at no time did Petitioner request an additional extension to remain in the Marine Corps Reserve until the date gap surrounding the missing fitness report was resolved. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by showing he reenlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve for three years on 15 April 2000 vice the two-year reenlistment on 12 April 2001 now of record. That he be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07036-99

    Original file (07036-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    was not done in Petitioner's case and he had no status in the Marine Corps reserve after 7 April Through administrative error this According to Petitioner 1997. the message from Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) authorizing separation pay stated that he should not be authorized a reserve It is unclear from the record why this was done, but contract. If given such status the comments concerning his However, the advisory opinion does not Given his overall good record and the other the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03434-99

    Original file (03434-99.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    With regard to your contention that the BOI was improperly constitute~ because no member was a chief warrant officer in your competitive category of Personnel (MOS 170), the Board noted that subparagraph 2d(1) of SECNAVINST 1920.6k stated that in the cases of regular officers other than limited duty officers and warrant officers, the BOI members must be serving in paygrade 0—6. in your competitive category might have had some insight into the merits of these allegations not shared by the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03434-99

    Original file (03434-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    must be at least t3 Regular officers in the grade of O-6 (colonel) as members WOs, the members need not be Paragraph 2d(3) then specifies that at least one member of %nrestricted line officer and that the (BOI) shall be an "one member shall be in the same competitive category as the respondent competitive category does not contain officers in the paygrade of O-6 or above, an O-6 from a closely related designator shall be used . this statute had been repealed by the t#me of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00182-02

    Original file (00182-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You are requesting reconsideration of your case and have provided a career retirement credit report (CRCR) that shows that you have over 18 years of active duty. HQMC has now computed your active service at 17 years, 10 months and 8 days, vice the 17 years, 10 months and 6 days previously reported which was used in the Board's denial of your case. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF -THE NAV HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO.