Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10030-07
Original file (10030-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00

 SMW
 Docket No:10030-07
19 June 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 June 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 2 March 1988, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 1 July 1990, you were promoted to pay grade E-4. On 27 September 1990, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for abusing a public animal. You then served without incident until 10 August 1992, when you had NJP for an unspecified period of unauthorized absence. On 1 April 1994, you received your last performance evaluation which did not recommend you for retention. The evaluation stated that your appearance, conduct, and attitude were below standards, and your military performance was below the standards expected of a third class petty officer. On 1 April 1994, you were honorably released from active duty due to the completion of required active service and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. On 22 November 1995, you were honorably discharged due to the expiration of obligated service.







Regulations direct the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to members who are not recommended for retention. 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,


W.       DEAN PFEIFFER
 Executive Director
























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11042-07

    Original file (11042-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2008. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05182-11

    Original file (05182-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval © Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05094-01

    Original file (05094-01.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. July 1990 you were honorably released from active duty at the expiration of your enlistment and assigned an RE-4 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06704-10

    Original file (06704-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2011. Your record contains an adverse performance evaluation for the period from 8 June 1993 to 30 June 1994 which reflects, in part, that you were not recommended for advancement or 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04238-09

    Original file (04238-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2010. On 10 May 1988, you received NIP for UA from you appointed place of duty. 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 | CY2007 | 09536-07

    Original file (09536-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 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 | 06616-07

    Original file (06616-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You waived your right to consult with counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01840-01

    Original file (01840-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 2001. accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, considered your application on regulations and policies. only one...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04367-01

    Original file (04367-01.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. Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of command's recommendation for advancement and retention are not shown in available records, the Board concluded that an adverse evaluation for the two month period prior to your release from active duty provided sufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07476-01

    Original file (07476-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Punishment imposed consisted of a suspended On 25 April 1995 you were notified that administrative separation action was being initiated to discharge you under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. present your case to an administrative discharge board You appeared before an ADB with counsel on 14 August 1995. The found you had committed misconduct due to ADB, by a vote of 3-0, a pattern of misconduct and...