Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07120-07
Original file (07120-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                  BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
          I        WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100

                          

                  TRG     -
 Docket No. 7120 - 07
 12 December 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 4 December 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.
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 enlisted in the Navy on 22 October 2002 for four years and were released from active duty on 21 October 2006. At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Shortly before your release from active duty, you filed a complaint of wrongs because your commanding officer denied your request for reenlistment and did not recommend you for reenlistment. On 27 October 2007, the Commander, Submarine Group 10 (COMSUBGRU 10) responded to your complaint of wrongs concluding that you were not discriminated against by your commanding officer. However, he determined that since there had been no adjudication of the allegations of misconduct that the reenlistment code should be changed from RE—4 to RE—l. Concerning your allegation that the commanding officer improperly withheld your advancement to E-5, COMSUBGRU 10 concluded that your commanding officer had the authority to withhold your advancement and that you were pending administrative action through the last date of your enlistment. It was noted, that he completed his general courts-martial authority review of your administrative processing on 17 October 2006 and returned the case to the commanding officer for further administrative processing. He concluded that you were subject to mandatory administrative processing through the final day of your enlistment and that therefore, the withholding of your advancement was justified. He further concluded that your separation code should be changed to show that your discharge was involuntary.

In your application to the Board, you are requesting that the Board direct your advancement to E-5. However, the Board agreed with the rationale and conclusion of COMSUBGRU 10 that there was a proper basis for withholding your advancement.
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 | CY2006 | 09724-06

    Original file (09724-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This is the same belief of my chain of command as seen in enclosure (12). Enclosures (13) and (14), are my NJP proceedings.3. Supervision of all Intelligence Department ratings while managing some of the Navy’s most sensitive programs for Commander Submarine Group Seven.Subj: APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF ADVERSE EVALUATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER (CPO) SELECTIONOfficer.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07834-10

    Original file (07834-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that your selection for advancement to chief petty officer be reinstated as of your original projected effective date of advancement, 16 July 2007. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2011. 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.

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-155

    Original file (2009-155.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to the applicant, during this meeting the CO informed the applicant that she was considering withdrawing the applicant’s recommendation for advancement based on concerns about the applicant’s performance and leadership. for example: In addition [the Article 138 reviewing authority (RA)] letter stated confusion on the applicant’s part as to her roles and responsibilities as ISC’s command senior chief and Servicing Personnel Office supervisor. The RA, in considering the Article 138...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07450-06

    Original file (07450-06.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.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 3 June 1999 at age 18. You were honorably released from active duty, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3737 13

    Original file (NR3737 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removal of a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) held on 28 May 2008, retirement in the rank of commander (pay grade 0o- '5), and removal of two fitness reports for 5 October 2006 to 18 April 2007, and for 17 August 2007 to 8 January 2008. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 July 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02202-00

    Original file (02202-00.pdf) 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. The Board concluded that in the absence of the last performance evaluation, withholding your advancement and the nonjudicial punishment for a period of unauthorized absence were sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10460-07

    Original file (10460-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You then served in the Navy Reserve until 14 September 1991, when you were honorably discharged from the service and not recommended for reenlistment pursuant to the approved findings of an administrative discharge board (ADB). You completed reports of medical history on those dates in which you falsely denied that you had ever been discharged from military service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04816-06

    Original file (04816-06.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.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 enlisted in the Navy on 6 November 2003 at age 19. He pointed out that he was surprised when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04768-01

    Original file (04768-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The first action, You reenlisted in the Navy on 23 November 1998 and applied to the Board for additional corrective action. However, individual is advanced at a later date. you are again requesting that your reenlistment You also request The Board concluded that the two previous actions of the Board provided sufficient relief in your case.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08398-06

    Original file (08398-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.3. At the time of the urinalysis he had stated that he had been given an unauthorized prescription drug by another Sailor on a drill weekend.e. Otherwise, there is no reason for an administrative discharge board to consider a case, and petitioners will surely opt for the informal exparte proceedings of this Board rather than the more demanding and...