Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09905-06
Original file (09905-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
                   WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51 00

                                                               C RS
                                                               Docket No: 9905-06
                                                                                           7 September 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 7 September 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 8 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. 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.
The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for separation should be changed, since you did not ask for such consideration and you have not exhausted your administrative remedy by applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). You may apply to NDRB by submit ting the attached DD Form 293.

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 22134-5103  





MMER R/RE
         


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FORMER
SUBJ RECODE

En cl :    (1) NAVNC 118(11)
 (2)      NAVMC 118(12)
(3)      NAMVC 118(12)a
(4)      NAVMC 118(12)b
                            ( 5) DD Form 553 of 29 Jul 99
                            ( 6) DD Form 616 of 26 Jan 00
                            (7) Trial Counsel Memorandum
 (8) DD Form 149 of Nov


1. A review of service record has been completed. It was determined that his reenlistment code of RE-4 was correctly assigned, which means he was not recommended for reenlistment. This reenlistment code was based on his overall record at the time of separation.
2. an other than honorable discharge on March 8, 2000 in lieu of trial by court~martia1. A review of his service record indicates that he was counseled concerning unauthorized absence and not being eligible or recommended for promotion. The disciplinary portion of his record shows he received two nonjudicial punishments for unauthorized absence, see enclosures (1) through (7)
3. After a review of all relevant information, this Headquarters concurs in the professional evaluation of qualif i cations 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 (8) is returned for final action.


        
                  Head, Performance, Evaluation
                  Review Branch
          Division By direction of the Commandant
 of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02448-06

    Original file (02448-06.rtf) 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 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. A minimum average conduct mark of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of separation.

  • 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 | 08064-06

    Original file (08064-06.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 31 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 | 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...

  • 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 | 06138-06

    Original file (06138-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100 CRSDocket No: 6138-0621 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 f or Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 September 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07561-06

    Original file (07561-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session considered your application on 1 November 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. XXXXX service record has been reviewed and it has been determined that his reenlistment code of RE-3C was correctly assigned.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03607-09

    Original file (03607-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary evidence 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 ‘@xistence of probabfe material error or injustice. After a review of all relevant information, we concur with the _ professional evaluation of QED qualifications for...

  • 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 | 07051-06

    Original file (07051-06.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 15 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...