DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 734-10
13 October 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 5 October 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. You entered active duty in the Navy on 21
January 1998. You received two adverse performance evaluations
for the periods from 16 March 2003 to 15 March 2004 and 16
March to 16 July 2004 in which you were not recommended for
retention. 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.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your honorable
service and current desire to reenlist in the armed forces.
However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code should
not be changed due to your two adverse performance evaluations
in which you were not recommended for retention. In view of
the above, 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
hy 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.
ey x
ft ia
Sincerely,
\o Suh
W. DEAN PF
Executive ector
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02456-09
After careful an@ conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code given your adverse discharge evaluation which recommended that you not be allowed to reenlist. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07450-06
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 3 June 1999 at age 18. You were honorably released from active duty, and...
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 | 03909-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code was assigned based on your performance during your last year on active duty, and that you were counseled concerning the fact that you were not eligible to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06940-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The Board found that the last performance evaluationdocumenting your FAP failures was sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code without consideration of previous evaluations and concluded that the...
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 | CY2001 | 05311-01
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. clear that you had to significantly improve both your performance of duty and conduct before you could be removed from petty officer quality control and receive a better reenlistment code. performance evaluation and the NJP, were sufficient to support the improvement in your performance, The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04367-01
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. Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of command's recommendation for advancement and retention are not shown in available records, the Board concluded that an adverse evaluation for the two month period prior to your release from active duty provided sufficient...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06765-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 2008. On 20 November 1986 you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were reduced to petty officer second class. At that time, you had completed 17 years, 11 months and 10 days of active service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02015-03
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. The next evaluation for the period 16 March to 10 November 2000 is also adverse in that you were not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy. You state in your application, in effect, that your performance of duty was excellent and your undiagnosed medical condition should not...