DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 6382-07
29 April 2008
your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 22 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 24 December 1980 after four years of
prior honorable service. You continued to served without
disciplinary incident until 27 April 1985, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed
place of duty. The punishment imposed was restriction for 10
days, a $100 forfeiture of pay, and a suspended reduction in
paygrade.
retention, and progressed forward, you needed to show Significant
progress and/or improvement in correcting your deficiencies,
specifically, weight physical qualifications.
December 1984 to 3 May 1985, which was submitted on the occasion
of your separation, states that you were not recommended for
advancement or retention due to an increase in your weight
physical qualifications. The reporting senior stated, in part,
as follows:
Separation performance evaluation: advancement/not
recommended; retention/not recommended; weight physical
qualifications: 27.9 (increased from 22.4)
NOTE: nonrecommendations due to:
SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE: careless INManagement caused a 5-hour
delay in getting underway, poor directing habits caused him
to be relieved as work center supervisor; must be
continuously reminded to stand proper watch; demonstrates a
high level of knowledge, but only with constant supervision
and counselling; lack of respect; received NJP; supervisory
faults;
‘Although he has the knowledge and capability to be an asset
to the Navy, his demonstrated performance has been
unsatisfactory, being far below the level expected of a
first class petty officer’
PHYSICAL READINESS TRAINING (PRT) FATLURE: enlistment
extended with the understanding that he would meet weight
standards; body fat has increased; appearance does not meet
military standards; presents an unsatisfactory example;
inability to conform
Shortly thereafter, on 16 May 1985, within three months of the
expiration of your enlistment, you were honorably discharged 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 prior honorable service and assertion that you were given a
substandard performance evaluation, which also ended your career,
because of personal conflicts with your division officer. [It
also considered your assertion that you believe the reenlistment
code and narrative reason for separation and/or separation code
are detrimental. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant a change in the RE-4 reenlistment
code or narrative reason for separation because of your
nonrecommendation for advancement and retention, substandard
performance, misconduct which resulted in NJP, and PRT failure.
Further, an RE-4 reenlistment code is authorized when a Sailor is
separated within three months of the expiration of enlistment 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.
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, ~
Ww
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06323-07
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. 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...
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 | CY2000 | 08558-00
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 May 2001. Your performance evaluation for the period from 1 December 1987 to 13 April 1988 reflects a nonrecommendation for continued service or reenlistment because you were not a positive contributor to the Navy. However, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code given your substandard performance and...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00245
ND03-00245 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason changed to Retired. Symptom – Pt stated history of active duty weight control. Under current standards, the Board found that the Applicant would not have been administratively separated by reason of weight control failure.
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901895
The NDRB determined the Applicant was not separated for medical reasons but for failure to meet assigned weight and body fat standards.The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 to 31 August 2001, however, does allow for an Honorable discharge for servicemembers separated for unsatisfactory performance (paragraph 6206).After a review of the Applicant’s service record, the NDRB did find that his service met the standard for honorable conduct. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07502-97
Block 20 (Physical Readiness) reads The grades she received for these making her ineligible for advancement and "F/NS" indicating laims she had a medical waiver from body fat measurements due to medication she was taking which caused weight gain. returned to the medical department to receive a waiver from official body fat measurements. screening would not have changed the outcome, as a medical waiver from body fat measurements was not appropriate for the Fall 1995 PRT cycle.
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01356
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant’s service was marred by numerous adverse counseling entries for unsatisfactory performance and conduct relating to his billet assignments, substandard physical fitness, and failure to make progress while assigned to the weight control program. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02881-02
Shortly thereafter, on 28 April 1998, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of weight control failure. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these Regarding your contention that you elected your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), the Board noted that when an individual is being processed for separation he is entitled to request an ADB due to weight control failure, Since you only if he has six or more years of active service....
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100252
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03755-06
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 Naval Reserve and began a period of active duty on 27 January 1983. However, 364...