DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .
TIR
Docket No: 10342-08 —
1 October 2009
-This is in reference to your application for correction of your
-.haval record. pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United .
States Code, Section 1552.
A-three-membér panel of the. Board for: Correction of. Naval
‘Records, gitting in executive session, considered your = -
application on 29 September 2009. The names and votes of. the
‘members of the panel.will be furnished upon request. |
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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 6 September 1996 at age 27
and began a period of active duty on 26 September 1596. You
served without disciplinary incident until 20 June 2000, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for failure to obey a
lawful ordex. The punishment imposed was a reduction.in paygrade
and a $667 forfeiture of pay.
Your record contains two enlisted performance evaluations in
which you were not recommended for retention or advancement
because your performance was well below standards and required
constant supervision, your lackluster approach to completing. .
tasks and lack of attention to detail, and your continued lack of
improvement which resulted in you being an administrative and
managerial burden.
On 10 January 2006, upon the completion of your required active
service, you were honorably discharged. At that time you were
not recommended for reenlistment and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to have your RE-4 reenlistment code changed so that
you may reenlist. It also considered your concerns regarding
your enlistment performance evaluation which states that you did
not meet Navy core values. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors. were not sufficient to warrant a change in your
reenlistment..code because of your nonrecommendation for.
retention, advancement, and reenlistment. The Board coneluded
that your military deficiencies, as well as the nonrecommendation
“were sufficient to.support: the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment ee 3S
code. Accordingly,. your’ application has been denied.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06382-07
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. December 1984 to 3 May 1985, which was submitted on the occasion of your separation, states that you were not recommended for advancement or retention due to an increase in your weight physical qualifications. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07452-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 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. 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 | 06323-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The reporting senior stated, in part, as follows: (Member) requires direct supervision to get satisfactory results.... he takes no ownership of any actions and constantly makes excuses for his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05407-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 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. 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 | CY2000 | 08558-00
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 May 2001. Your performance evaluation for the period from 1 December 1987 to 13 April 1988 reflects a nonrecommendation for continued service or reenlistment because you were not a positive contributor to the Navy. However, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code given your substandard performance and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09553-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 July 2010. 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 were not recommended for retention or reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08879-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your period of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02003-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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 | CY2009 | 02339-09
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. However, the performance evaluation for the period from 16 March to 17 November 2000 states, in part, that you were not recommended for retention because you did not complete your obligated service requirements as stipulated in | — your 10 July 1997 agreement. Nevertheless, the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11201-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 2010. As a result, on 28 September 2009, while serving in paygrade E-2, you were so discharged 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.