Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10130-07
Original file (10130-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SMW
Docket No: 10130-07

26 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 25 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 21 September 1999, you enlisted in the Navy Reserve delayed
entry program at age 18, and incurred an eight year contractual
obligation that ended on 20 September 2007. on

22 September 1999, you enlisted in the Navy and reported for
active duty. On 31 May 2000, you had nonjudicial punishment
for larceny of a box of Ex-lax. On 16 July 2002, you executed
a 22 month extension of your active service that resulted in a
new expiration of active service (EAS) of 21 July 2005. On

27 March 2003, you executed a two month extension of your
active service that resulted in a new EFAS of 21 September 2005.
On 16 December 2003, you were promoted to pay grade F-4. On

3 May 2005, you executed a 24 month extension of your active
service that resulted in a new EAS of 21 September 2007. On
21 September 2007, you were honorably discharged by reason of
non-retention on active duty, assigned an RE-6 reenlistment
code, and paid $19,802.88 in separation pay.
Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-6 reenlistment
code to members who are discharged by reason of non-rentention
on active duty and are ineligible or denied reenlistment due to
high year tenure. 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-6 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.

The Board noted that the record does not show that you incurred
additional obligated service beyond your original contractual
obligation and subsequent extensions that ended on

21 September 2007. You should contact the Department of the
Navy, Navy Personnel Command, Sailor Assistance Center (Code
Pers-312F), 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, Tennessee 38055-
3120 to request verification of your contractual obligation and
any administrative corrections to your DD Form 214.

The Board further noted that although the Navy will not
consider waiving an RE-6 reenlistment code, other branches of
the armed forces, such as the Army National Guard may consider
such a waiver.

 

Sincerely,

W. 2 PFE

Executive Dinewtor

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010444C070208

    Original file (20040010444C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that she should have been extended from her original MSO (military service obligation) date of 28 February 1999 and not the enlistment/reenlistment contract she executed on 22 October 1999 which she executed when she went from the Army National Guard to the Army Reserve. On 22 October 1999 the applicant executed an enlistment/reenlistment contract in the United States Army Reserve. Table 3-1, rule A, of Army Regulation 140-111 authorizes extensions for a period of up...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03945-98

    Original file (03945-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I do not have a (SSAN) and I have never had a (SSAN). On 5 March 1997 you submitted a request through the chain of command to extend your enlistment in accordance with the agreement.of 6 December 1996. later.- Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the servicing personnel support detachment (PSD) which reads, in part, as follows: that the SSAN will be printed at but further states that However, on 12 March 1997 you submitted a letter to the That request was approved one day B90102d of Section A,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03798-08

    Original file (03798-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2009. 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. On 31 January 2004, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 21 after a prior period of honorable service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08499-06

    Original file (08499-06.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 July 2007. 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 | CY2001 | 01396-00

    Original file (01396-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    D.C. 20350-200 NAV Y S 0 IN REPLY REFER TO 5420 Ser 14 June 2000 N130D/ OuO329 MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS via: Assistant for BCNR Matters (Pers-OOZCB) Ref: (a) DODINST 1304.22 Encl: (1) BCNR File #01396-00 with microfiche service record The following p.rovides comment and recommendation on former 1. Petty Officer initial enlistment into the Navy was ay she signed an agreement and 3. on 1 June 1987. statement of understanding that by electing...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 02470-01

    Original file (02470-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2470-01 17 August 2001 This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. considered your application on Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 15 August 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Further facts and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020456

    Original file (20110020456.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests the DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment) that she executed on 3 February 2010 be voided and removed from her military service records. The applicant and a commissioned officer signed the document on 3 February 2010. d. Two email messages that show: (1) On 15 September 2011, an Army official indicated that the applicant: * was not authorized an affiliation bonus because she was required to reenlist for 1 year upon assignment and failed to do...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004217C070205

    Original file (20060004217C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s New STRAP Service Agreement is not available. The application indicates he had a 60-month active duty service obligation (ADSO) due to his one-year participation in the U.S. Army Reserve, STRAP. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his New STRAP Service Agreement contract to show he would satisfy the STRAP debt under the terms of the New STRAP Service Agreement by successfully...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07250-07

    Original file (07250-07.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.On 25 April 2001, you enlisted in the Navy at age 20. Regulations also direct assignment of an RE-4...