Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04367-07
Original file (04367-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                                                       BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                                               WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMW
 Docket No: 4367-07
8 November 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 7 November 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters United States Marine Corps ( MM ER), 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 regard, 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
E nclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARiNE CORS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134
                                   

                                    IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                           1040
                                                                                           MMER/RE
                                                                                           APR 12 2001
MEMORANDU M FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
                           SUBJ: RECODE
End; (1) NAVMC l18(ll)b
 (2)      Humanitarian Transfer request of 24 Feb 86
 (3)      HUMS Req MSG of Mar 86
(4)      Form 149 of 12 Aug 06

1.       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 the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) assigned the code.
2. was honorably discharged on April 15, 1986 by reason of hardship discharge. A review of his service record indicates that he was counseled concerning the authorization of a hardship discharge by CMC. ~ requested a humanitarian transfer to I-I Fort Knox, Kentucky for reasons of financial hardship. He also requested to be considered for a hardship discharge if his request for a transfer could not be granted. CMC considered and disapproved ~ transfer request based on the fact that it was considered long term in nature. However, they did find that the conditions warranted discharge by reason of hardship. 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.       Enclosures (4) is returned for final action.



Head, Performance Evaluation
Review Branch   
Personnel Management Division
 Battlion of the Commandant
 of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02447-00

    Original file (02447-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    discharged on 24 February 1997 and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 4 reenlistment code to individuals who are not recommended for reenlistment. 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 | 03690-05

    Original file (03690-05.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 9 May 2005, 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 | 00630-06

    Original file (00630-06.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 an advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is enclosed.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 | CY2008 | 03387-08

    Original file (03387-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00065-07

    Original file (00065-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 2 April 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your rebuttal.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 requested we provide an advisory opinion on Lance Corporal Martin’s (hereinafter “Applicant”) application, docket #00065-07, to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00379-02

    Original file (00379-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removal of your fitness reports for 1 March to 28 August 1998 and 1 October to 14 November 1998, as well as documentation of your relief for the good of the service from recruiting duty. ” CMC also “Recruited SNM was put on bed rest/no duty due to pregnancy problems/back problems. (2), the approval authority (GOS) relief from recruiting duty, has supports her request for Additionally, enclosure Based upon this review, 2. following errors require corrective action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02600-07

    Original file (02600-07.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 the Headquarters, Marine Corps, Performance Evaluation Review Branch dated 1 March 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06155-06

    Original file (06155-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    06155-06 11 May 2007This 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 10 May 2007. In addition, it considered an advisory opinion provided by officials of Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, dated 14 July 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10049-06

    Original file (10049-06.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, Performance Evaluation Review Branch, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01705-07

    Original file (01705-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100TJRDocket No: 1705-07 5 September 2007This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 5 September 2007. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion...