Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06894-09
Original file (06894-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TAL
Docket No: 6894-09
13 May 2010

 

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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 May 2010. 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 estabiish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active on 17 March
1992 at age 19. On 16 December 1993, you received nonjudiciali
punishment (NIP) for two instances of disobeying a lawful written
regulation. You were not recommended for retention or
reenlistment. On 16 March 1994, you were honorably discharged
from active duty 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 youth and desire to change your reenlistment code for
possible reentry into the armed forces. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change
in your reenlistment code given the non-recommendation for
reenlistment which was sufficient to support the assignment of an
RF-4 reenlistment code. Accordingly, your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.
Ie 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,

Ph Fos
ROBERT D. SALMAN

Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10335-09

    Original file (10335-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In this regard, you were assigned the appropriate reenlistment code based on Accordingly, your application has been votes of the members of the panel will It is regretted that the circumstances favorable action cannot be taken. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02275-09

    Original file (02275-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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. Your record contains an enlisted performance evaluation for the period from 16 March 2006 to 15 Mareh 2007 in which you received an overall trait...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11228-09

    Original file (11228-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2422 14

    Original file (NR2422 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2015. 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. 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 | CY2009 | 09502-09

    Original file (09502-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 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. 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 | 04159-09

    Original file (04159-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2010. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged at the expiration of his term of active obligated service and is 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 error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03346-09

    Original file (03346-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 2010. On 24 June 2005, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you from the Navy Reserve due to your non-participation in drills. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is authorized when an individual is discharged and not recommended for reenlistment.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00734-10

    Original file (00734-10.pdf) 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. You were released from active duty on 18 August 2004 under honorable conditions, and were assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04105-09

    Original file (04105-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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. 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

    Original file (02339-09.pdf) 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. 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...