Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09213-09
Original file (09213-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
’ WASHINGTON DC 20370-5106 REC

Docket No: 09213-09 .
1 February 2010

 

 

“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 26 January 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 establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

On 30 September 2004, you began a period in the Navy Reserve
until you were separated by reason of unsatisfactory
participation by not maintaining your medical readiness status
due to not completing a Physical Health Assessment and dental
examination annually. At that time, you received a general
discharge and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your overall record
of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors
were not sufficient to warrant changing the reason for
characterization of your discharge, or your reenlistment code,
given your record of failing to participate in maintaining your
medical requirements. The Board concluded that you were
fortunate to have received a general discharge, because many
service members receive discharges under other than honorable
conditions for poor readiness status. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02633-10

    Original file (02633-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 2011. On 9 March 2007 your commanding officer recommended an administrative separation by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve due to failure to maintain medical readiness as evidenced by noncompliance with TNPQ status update requirements. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13164-09

    Original file (13164-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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 | CY2009 | 02736-09

    Original file (02736-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 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 | CY2012 | 04269-12

    Original file (04269-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2013. 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. ' Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of your failure to...

  • 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 | 09231-09

    Original file (09231-09.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. 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 RE-4 reenlistment code. In this regard, you were assigned the appropriate reenlistment code based on your circumstances.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11080-09

    Original file (11080-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 2010. On 13 June 1983, you were honorably discharged from the Navy Reserve and were recommended for reenlistment. 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 | 10321-09

    Original file (10321-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 July 2010. In this regard, you were assigned the appropriate reenlistment code based on your circumstances. 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 | 02597-09

    Original file (02597-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 01609-10

    Original file (01609-10.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 November 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. At that time the discharge authority stated that you were not recommended for reenlistment because of your failure to maintain at least an 85%...