DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 10920-07
1 July 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 17 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. In addition, the Board considered an advisory
opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command, a copy of which
is enclosed.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 11 October 1989 and then served
continuously on active duty for almost 18 years. The record
shows that you performed your duties in an excellent manner and
were advanced to petty officer first class.
The record shows a long history of failing to meet the weight
standards. A service record entry dated 11 June 2007 indicates
that you weighed 298 pounds which equated to 39% body fat. This
percentage indicates that you were obese. When you were informed
of the command's intent to deny your reenlistment you appealed
that denial to the Navy Personnel Command. In its endorsement on
your appeal the command stated, in part, as follows:
... [He] has failed eight consecutive PFA's [Physical
Fitness Assessments}, he has been granted three
consecutive extensions and six consecutive waivers from
Mandatory ADSEP [Administrative Separation] processing
to correct his deficiency. During the most recent
extension, member was informed that there would be no
more extensions or reenlistment unless he reduced his
body fat by 1% per month...During the...PFA conducted
07JUL12...[he] weighed in at 39% body fat, showing zero
progress...[{he] has been not recommended for
advancement and retention on each evaluation since
O5NOV15.
After review, the Navy Personnel Command declined to allow your
reenlistment.
You were honorably discharged on 9 September 2007 by reason of
non-retention on active duty with an RE-4 reenlistment code. At
that time you had accumulated 17 years, 10 months and 29 days of
active service. The record shows that you were paid separation
pay:
As indicated in the enclosed advisory opinion, you were not
entitled to an administrative discharge board because you were
being discharged at the expiration of your enlistment. A denial
of reenlistment is not considered to be administrative discharge
processing.
It was clear to the Board that given your many years of
difficulties in meeting the weight standards that you were on
notice that you must meet the weight standards in order to
continue in the Navy. Since you did not meet the standards, the
Board concluded that you were properly denied reenlistment and a
correction to your record to show that you retired from the Navy
was not warranted.
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,
Qa Rt
W. DEAN PFREYF
Executive r or
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1910
PERS-832
11 Feb 08
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION
OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR)
Via: ASSISTANT FOR BCNR MATTERS, PERS-31C
Subj: COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF FORMER MEMBER
Ref: (a) COMNAVPERSCOM 5420 PERS-31C memo of 17 Jan 08
(b) MILPERSMAN 1616-030
(c) BUPERSINST 1900.8
(d) OPNAVINST 1900.4
Encl: (1) BCNR Case for Walter D. Armour
1. In response to reference (a) and after careful review of
enclosure (1), it is our opinion that SNM received the
appropriate SPD code of JGH and an RE-4, given the documentation
provided to us. We do not concur with the petitioner’s request.
2. Additionally, PERS-811 directed the member’s separation at
EAOS via email dated 1 August 2007. This was based on the
submission of a denial of reenlistment package, per ref (b), by
the member’s command. As denial of reenlistment requests are
not considered administrative processing, the member would not
have had the opportunity to elect an administrative board.
Based on the evaluations submitted with the package and failure
of the fall 2007 PRT, the member was not recommended for
retention and therefore per ref (c) and ref (d) the appropriate
SPD and RE code was issued.
3. This is an advisory memorandum for the use of the Board for
Correction of Naval Records only.
Assistant Head,
Enlisted Separations
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03304-03
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. Do not concur with the request to remove the NAVPERS 1070/613 from the record.-equests this action based on his statement that he did not fail any portion of the Spring 2001 PFA cycle. The recommendation to deny Petty Office request to remove the NAVPERS 1070/613s is based on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07502-97
Block 20 (Physical Readiness) reads The grades she received for these making her ineligible for advancement and "F/NS" indicating laims she had a medical waiver from body fat measurements due to medication she was taking which caused weight gain. returned to the medical department to receive a waiver from official body fat measurements. screening would not have changed the outcome, as a medical waiver from body fat measurements was not appropriate for the Fall 1995 PRT cycle.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02330-07
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 04514-97
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Bureau of Naval Personnel dated 19 September and 3 November 1997 and 20 May 1998 with reference (b), copies of which are attached. We cannot determine if the promotion recommendation is in accordance PRT regulations in effect at the time since or if the member could have been recommendation for promotion as it appears the member may have been out of two fitness reports. DSN MSC, USNR, f contact is LCD Pers-601,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03461-05
03461-05 4 April 2006 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD R Ref: (a) 10 U.S~C. 3 (1) Block 20: Change from “MINS” to “PINS.” (2) Block 43 *36: Change to read “- [PFA] Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 P/NS (2nd failure) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, the requested correction...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101594
Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10765-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 July 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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. Sailor petitioned...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09689-05
The Board, having Based on reference (a) and the BRIMS database recommend the member’s evaluation should be revised to P/WS “Passed/Within Standards” in Block 20. The member alleges an administrative error occurred and requests the report be corrected and changed from ‘PINS’ to reflect a ‘P/WS’ in block 20, Physical Readiness.b.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04541-01
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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner states that on the day the report was written yet had never been placed 2. he was reported as being...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07322-98
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 MEH:mh Docket No: 7322-98 25 May 1999 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 May 1999. equests repayment of tive Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) recouped...