Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03045-10
Original file (03045-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

CRS
Docket No: 3045-10
9 April 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 31 March 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.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 28 October 1996.
On 16 October 2000 you received nonjudicial punishment for an
unauthorized absence. in your final evaluation report dated 27
October 2000, you were not recommended for retention by your
commanding officer. You were honorably released from active duty
on 27 October 2000 by reason of expiration of active obligated
service, and assigned a reentry code of RE-4.

 

Applicable reguiations normally require the assignment of an RE-4
reentry code to individuals who are not recommended for retention
in the last evaluation report issued prior to their separation.
As you have not demonstrated that your reentry code is erroneous
or unjust, the Board concluded that there is no basis for
changing it, and denied your application. The names and votes of
the members of the panel wili be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitied 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,

Executive e xr

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10666-10

    Original file (10666-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 2010. On 19 April 2000 you were given a diagnosis of asthma, which was considered disqualifying for enlistment and not correctable to meet Navy Standards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the e&istence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07554-10

    Original file (07554-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 2010. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05410-10

    Original file (05410-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 2010. 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. As your...

  • 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 | 10749-09

    Original file (10749-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 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 | CY2014 | NR5479 14

    Original file (NR5479 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 27 May 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 error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08817-08

    Original file (08817-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 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 | CY2007 | 04648-07

    Original file (04648-07.rtf) 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.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.The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on27 September 1997. On the same date you received...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00211-11

    Original file (00211-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 2011. In this regard, an RE-4 reentry code is required when an individual is discharged at the expiration of his term of enlistment 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 injustice.