DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 01966-09
10 December 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 9 December 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
9 duly 2001, at age 18. On 10 June 2002, you failed to
successfully pass your required physical readiness test (PRT) and
were provided counseling and recommendations to assist you in
maintaining the required standards. On 23 July 2003, you were
counseled an additional time and provided guidance to
successfully complete the PRT and warned that you needed to be
within body fat standards. On 12 July 2004, you were counseled
for a third time for not being within the required Navy standards
for physical fitness assessment (PFA) and it was. documented on
your evaluation that you were not recommended for retention.
Your Commanding Officer recommended that you remain in the Navy
until completion of your obligated service, and at that time you
received an RE-4 reenlistment code based on three failures of
your required PFA's.
In reviewing your application, the Board considered all
mitigating factors, such as your overall record of service.
However, the Board found these factors insufficient to warrant
changing your reenlistment code because of your three PFA
failures. The Board noted that applicable regulations authorize
the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals who
have three PFA failures. The Board found that you had reached
service limitations for pay grade E-3 as well. To be recommended
for reenlistment, a Sailor must be serving in pay grade E-4, or
have passed the E-4 advancement examination and be recommended
for promotion and retention. The Board thus concluded that there
is no error or injustice in your 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
existende of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06030-09
06030-09 n. On 30 May 2008, two days after failing the BCA portion of the PFA, Petitioner received another medical waiver. On 5 June 2009, Petitioner filed enclosure 1 with this Board requesting that the applicable naval record be corrected to show advancement to E-6/AT1 from the March 2008, Navy-wide advancement exam, Cycle 199. w. By enclosure 3, Petitioner's command has commented that no relief is warranted for the following reasons: Petitioner was not within BCA standards and did not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08326-09
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. During the period 16 March thru 7 December 2004, you successfully passed the PRT, however, you were not recommended for 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...
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 | CY2009 | 02597-09
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. On 30 May 1996, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of PRT failure. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01340-09
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. Additionally, you were warned that failure of a third (or greater) PFA within a four year period could result in administrative discharge action. in this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is authorized when a Sailor is discharged due to PFA failure and not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11116-06
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 7 February 2006 at age 21 and served without disciplinary incident.While...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800018
After assuring compliance with MILPERSMAN 1910-170 the separation authority directed the Applicant’s discharge by reason of physical standards with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant’s conduct reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade in his characterization of service. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are...
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 | 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 | 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...