DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SUN
“Docket No: 09119-07
21 August 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 18 March 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 30 June 1997 at age 25. Based on the
information currently contained in your record it appears that
you were involuntarily processed for separation due to
unsatisfactory performance. On 17 March 1999, you signed an
evaluation report covering the period from 16 July 1998 to
20 March 99, in which your commanding officer reported, in part,
that you were enable to complete assigned tasks, needed constant
Supervision, and had issues with your military bearing.
In connection with this processing, you would have acknowledged
the separation action and the discharge authority would have
approved a recommendation for separation. The record clearly
shows that on 9 April 1999, you received a general discharge.
At that time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals who are separated due to unsatisfactory
performance. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or
injustice in your reenlistment code.
Further, the Board employed a presumption of regularity
pertaining to your discharge. This means that, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, your discharge was be presumed to be
proper as issued. 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,
RDS Ae
ROBERT D. SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5810 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2014. On 4 April 2008, you were discharged with a general characterization of service due to unsatisfactory participation and assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reenlistment code. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01678-06
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, th Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 9 May 1996 at age 17 and then earned three consecutive...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00805-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. Finally, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor, serving in paygrade E-2, is not recommended for reenlistment because of unsatisfactory performance. 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 | CY2009 | 02548-09
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 thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reenlistment code. 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 | CY2001 | 05850-01
A You were marked 3.0 ("meets The reporting senior noted The evaluation for the period ending 15 July 2000 showed you were now promotable and meeting standards in all categories. discharged from your second enlistment, you had not advanced Therefore, you met the criteria for reenlistment when For the first reenlistment, an However, at the time you were 2 Since you The Board found beyond E-3 and were not recommended for advancement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03489-03
After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 22 December 2000 you were discharged with an other than honorable At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code discharge. In fact, you were not recommended Concerning your request to change the RE-4 reenlistment code, as a drilling reservist you should not have a reenlistment code. The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for separation should be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06857-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 March 2011. It appears that you reenlisted in the Naval Reserve and served until 26 July 2005, when you received a general discharge due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve, and were assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05843-07
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.You enlisted in the Navy on 29 July 1998 at age 17. It also appears that when notified of this...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01795-01
The reason for the removal of this report is In your application you are requesting reenlistment in the Marine Corps, a change in the reenlistment code, payment of full separation pay and/or early retirement from the Marine Corps. The Board can correct a record, but the decision to authorize reenlistment is solely a matter within the prerogative of the Marine Corps. The Board believed that the adverse fitness report for the period ending 1 February 1999 and the recommendation that you not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01906-01
you elected to waive your When informed of the recommendation, right to present your case to an administrative discharge board. Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of unsatisfactory performance. 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.