DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMW
Docket No: 7408-07
24 April 2008
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 23 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.
On 14 December 2000, you enlisted in the Navy at age 19.
On 15 March 2001, a medical evaluation found radiographic
evidence of a defect in your lumbar spine that existed prior to
enlistment. The evaluation concluded by recommending
administrative separation. On that same date, another medical
evaluation diagnosed you as having spondylolysis and stated
that this condition was not correctable. On 2 April 2001, a
medical officer recommended an entry level separation due to a
condition that existed prior to enlistment that you were not
aware of and was not detectable by a routine physical
examination.
On 9 April 2001, your commanding officer initiated
administrative separation by reason of erroneous enlistment.
In connection with this processing, you acknowledged the
separation action. On 16 April 2001, the separation authority
approved the separation recommendation and directed an
honorable discharge by reason of erroneous enlistment.
On 24 April 2001, you received a performance evaluation which
did not recommend you for retention. On 17 May 2001, you
acknowledged that you were not eligible for reenlistment by
Signing a service record entry. On 17 May 2001, you were
enlistment and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Regulations authorize assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to members who are not recommended for retention or are
discharged due to erroneous enlistment. Since you have been
treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board
could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the
RE-4 reenlistment code. 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,
Executive Di
__ Separated with an honorable discharge by reason of erroneous
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09398-07
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.On 13 March 2001, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 5 April 2001, the separation authority...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07036-07
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.On 27 November 2006, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. The evaluation diagnosed you as having an...
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 | CY2007 | 06809-07
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.On 15 June 2000, you enlisted in the Navy at age 21. On 13 June 2001, you were separated with a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08497-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 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 | CY2007 | 05547-07
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. Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to members who are not recommended for retention or discharged by reason or erroneous entry. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07008-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. on the urinalysis you were processed for an administrative separation by reason of erroneous enlistment due to drug abuse. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04180-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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. Your record reflects that in April 2002 you enlisted in the Air Force and were subsequently separated with an entry level separation by reason of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07326-07
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.On 14 May 1997, you enlisted in the Navy at age 20. On 30 November 2000, you received a psychiatric...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00967-01
be separated and requested retention in the Navy. On 22 September 2000 the separation authority directed an entry level separation and you were so separated on that same day. 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.