DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
TRG
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Docket No: 6924-08
14 January 2009
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 6 January 2009. 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 16 March 1993. The record shows that
you then served without incident for several years. On 16 June
1996 you were advanced to petty officer third class. The
performance evaluation for the period from 16 June 1996 to 15
December 1996 is adverse with an overall trait average of 2.14,
adverse comments and a nonrecommendation for reenlistment. A
copy of that evaluation is enclosed for your information. On 1
January 1997 you received nonjudicial punishment for an
unspecified period of unauthorized absence. You were released
from active duty on 28 February 1997 with an honorable
characterization of service. At that time, you were assigned an
RE-4 reenlistment code. Subsequently you were issued an
honorable discharge certificate upon completion of your eight
year military obligation.
You point out in your application that you received a Good
Conduct Medal and other awards and, in effect, that you should
have been recommended for reenlistment. However, the performance
evaluation for the period ending 15 December 1996 is adverse and
you received nonjudicial punishment after that date which was
about two months prior to your release from active duty. The
Board concluded that the RE-4 reenlistment code was properly
assigned and no change is 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,
Lo. Ruan
W. DEAN PFE R
Executive Divedtdr,
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03932-01
You were The Board believed that a record of three consecutive marginal and adverse performance evaluations was sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code, despite the recommendation for retention contained in the last performance evaluation of record. the Board concludes that if a performance evaluation for the period 15 June 1997 until your release from active duty on 6 October 1997 had been available, it would have been adverse. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03029-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. You have submitted evidence showing that the In support of your case you have submitted Apparently, this The Board concluded that a record of three...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03438-06
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable mate:rial error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy for four years on 25 January 1995 at age 20. On 24 January 1999 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05563-01
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. During the period 16 March 1996 to 13 May 1998, you You reenlisted in the Navy on 13 April 1990 for five years and subsequently extended that enlistment on three occasions totaling 39 months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01447-01
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. You have submitted documentation showing that your knee You state that the commanding officer agreed with You believe an The Board noted that there is no documentation in the record to support your contentions concerning the nonjudicial punishment and the punishment imposed. punishment, for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08372-06
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 19 June 1996 at age 18. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09602-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05454 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 March 2012. 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 | CY1999 | 05501-98
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. At that time you were not recommended for retention and were 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 error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02649-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 December 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is authorized when a Sailor is discharged due to PRT failure.