DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 09610-07
17 November 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 13 November 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 2 February 1998. You served for
Over eight years and were advanced to paygrade E-5. You were
also awarded the Good Conduct and Navy and Marine Corp
Achievement Medal.
On 27 June 2006, you signed a performance evaluation in which you
were not recommended for retention. That evaluation assigned
adverse marks in the marking categories of quality of work and
personal job accomplishment/initiative. The evaluation comments
state that you did not possess the initiative nor leadership
skills required, and therefore were not recommended for
advancement or retention in the naval service. On 27 June 2006,
you were honorably discharged from active duty at the expiration
of your enlistment. At that time you were assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your entire period of
service, the reason you were not permitted to reenlist, and post
service accomplishments. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the
reenlistment code because of the adverse discharge evaluation
which recommended that you not be allowed to reenlist. [In this
regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual
is separated at the expiration of his term of active obligated
service and is not recommended for retention. 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,
\Wpes
W. DEAN P F
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09104-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 2008. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code because of the adverse discharge evaluation which recommended that you not be allowed to reenlist. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02456-09
After careful an@ conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code given your adverse discharge evaluation which recommended that you not be allowed to reenlist. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03278-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2008. On 19 April 2007 you signed a performance evaluation in which you were not recommended for retention. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is separated at the expiration of his term of active obligated service and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08481-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 2008. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is separated at the expiration of his term of active obligated service and is not recommended for retention. 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 | CY2006 | 04468-06
04468-06 2 November 2006This 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 31 October 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03279-07
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 29 September 2000. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09514-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 May 2006. 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 | CY2006 | 07450-06
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 Navy on 3 June 1999 at age 18. You were honorably released from active duty, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03422-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 February 2011. 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. Further, the Board concluded that there was no evidence in the record to support a change of the RE-4 reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03909-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code was assigned based on your performance during your last year on active duty, and that you were counseled concerning the fact that you were not eligible to...