DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TOR
Docket No: 6102-10
30 March 2011
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 29 March 2011. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 enlisted in the Navy on 3 September 2002 at age 18 and served
without disciplinary incident. However, on 14 December 2009, you
were notified of the final revocation of eligibility for your
security clearance due to your failure, inability, or
unwillingness to comply with the rules and regulations regarding
your financial responsibilities. As a result of this action, Lt
appears that you requested conversion to a rating that did not
require a security clearance. Nevertheless, your request was
disapproved and you were advised that without a security
clearance you were unable to perform your duties and as such were
no longer suitable for retention.
On 6 May 2010 you were notified of pending separation action by
reason of unsatisfactory performance due to the loss of your
security clearance. You were also advised that you were not
recommended for retention or reenlistment. At that time you did
not object to the separation and waived your procedural rights.
On 13 May 2010 the discharge authority directed your commanding
officer to issue an honorable discharge by reason of convenience
of the government due to unsatisfactory performance, and to
assign an RE-4 reenlistment code. On 20 May 2010 you were so
discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board concluded that your nonrecommendation for retention and
reenlistment due to the loss of your security clearance was
administratively and procedurally correct. Accordingly, your
application has been denied.
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,
laiiiea &
W. DEAN PFE EF
Executive D
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05518-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 February 2011. 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 | 02548-09
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. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reenlistment code. 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 | CY2011 | 11272 11
g. In March 2011, after being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. He had never been held back in any way from progressing through his Navy career due to security clearance issues and he was not aware that there was a deficiency that would disqualify him from competing for advancement. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2626 14
ih thres-membex,, panel of the Board for Correction of Naval .. ‘Records, sitting.in executive session, considered your .. a ‘application:on 25 March 2015. 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. Finally, an RE-4 reentry code must be assigned to all Sailors discharged due to unsatisfactory performance as a result of having there...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11143-09
However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code should not be changed, your pay grade of E-4 should not be reinstated, nor should your security clearance revocation documentation be removed because of your substandard performance and misconduct. The Board concluded that you were fortunate to receive a general characterization of service, because Sailors who are separated for misconduct normally receive an other than honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10663-09
‘ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2010. On 5 March 2004, you were notified that the Defense Security Service (DSS) investigation had denied you a security clearance. .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 | CY2010 | 00887-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 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 | CY2013 | NR2452 13
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The advisory recommended that his RE-4 reentry code not be changed in light of the loss of his security clearance. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by , ‘changing block 26 (Separation Code) of his DD Form 214 from “HHI” to “JBK”, and that biock 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) be changed from “Unsatisfactory Performance” to - *Completion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11433-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 2011. You were notified of the recommendation that you be discharged with an uncharacterized separation due to entry level performance and conduct. 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 | CY2011 | 00629-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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.