DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJR .
Docket No: 6323-07
17 April 2008
States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 15 April 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 29 September 1997 at age 19 and
served without disciplinary incident until 31 January 2001, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for insubordination and
failure to obey a lawful order.
On 23 October 2003 you received NUP for absence from your
appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order. The
punishment imposed was a $350 forfeiture of pay, restriction and
extra duty for 14 days, and reduction to paygrade E-3, which was
suspended for six months. About six months later, on 23 April
2004, you received a third NUP for absence from your appointed
place of duty and were awarded a $311 forfeiture of pay,
restriction and extra duty for 14 days, and a suspended reduction
to paygrade E-2.
On 29 July 2005 you signed a performance evaluation acknowledging
a nonrecommendation for advancement and retention. The reporting
senior stated, in part, as follows:
(Member) requires direct supervision to get satisfactory
results.... he takes no ownership of any actions and
constantly makes excuses for his unsatisfactory performance
blaming others.... awarded NUP for UA, which resulted in a
suspended reduction in paygrade.... not recommended for
advancement or retention.
September 2005, that you acknowledged/signed, which states that
you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code and were not subject
to recall without review and approval of the Chief of Naval
Personnel. Shortly thereafter, on 28 September 2005, while
serving in paygrade E-3 you were honorably discharged by reason
of nonretention on active duty and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment
code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and assertion that you should have been assigned a
reenlistment code for high-year tenure. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change
in the RE-4 reenlistment code because of your nonrecommendation
for advancement and retention, substandard performance,
misconduct which resulted in three NJPs, and failure to meet
professional growth criteria. Further, an RE-4 reenlistment code
is authorized when a Sailor is separated and is not recommended
for retention or reenlistment. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03173-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 2010. 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 | CY2008 | 02092-08
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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code because of your disciplinary record which resulted in two NUPs, failure of professional growth criteria, and nonrecommendation for retention or reenlistment. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08499-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2007. 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 | CY2008 | 09424-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2009. 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 this regard, you did not appeal your NUPs or submit rebuttal statements to your substandard performance evaluations.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04736-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2012. 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 | CY2008 | 00920-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08879-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2009. 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your period of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08110-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code because of your disciplinary...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00451-05
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed. In order to receive an RE-3R reenlistment code, a Sailor must be recommended for advancement or be promotable. Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s record does not warrant the worst reenlistment code of RE-4, and that code should be changed to RE-3R.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10342-08
Naval ‘Records, gitting in executive session, considered your = - application on 29 September 2009. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to have your RE-4 reenlistment code changed so that you may reenlist. 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.