DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 6170-10
16 July 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 8 July 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.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
8 February 1994 at age 20. Based on the information currently
contained in your record it appears that you were subsequently
involuntarily processed for an entry level separation. In
connection with this processing, you would have acknowledged the
separation action and the discharge authority would have approved
a recommendation for separation. The record clearly shows that
on 30 June 1994, you were discharged with an honorable discharge
due to entry level performance and conduct. On 8 June 1994, you
Signed an administrative remarks document acknowledging you had
been informed that you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code,
which means that you were neither recommended nor eligible for
reenlistment.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
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 RE-4
reenlistment code. 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,
\'
W. DEAN PFEIF
Executive Dir
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10318-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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 | CY1999 | 06862-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. On 12 April 1994 you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of erroneous entry due to failed physical standards ag evidenced by the diagnosed knee pain which existed prior to your enlistment. 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 | 06862-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. On 12 April 1994 you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of erroneous entry due to failed physical standards ag evidenced by the diagnosed knee pain which existed prior to your enlistment. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10442-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 2010. 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 connection with this processing, you would have acknowledged the separation action and the discharge authority would have approved a recommendation for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13307-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 September 2010. On 22 March 1994, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of defective enlistment and erroneous enlistment due to the diagnosed instability of your right shoulder which was not disclosed prior to your entry into the Navy. Based on the medical evaluation, you were processed for separation by reason of failed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00865-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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. Your record is incomplete, but in connection with this processing, you would have acknowledged the separation action and the discharge authority...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04582-08
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. Furthermore, regulations authorize assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to members who are discharged due to a diagnosed personality disorder and are considered a risk to harm themselves or others if retained. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10014-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 June 2010. 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 | CY2010 | 06704-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2011. Your record contains an adverse performance evaluation for the period from 8 June 1993 to 30 June 1994 which reflects, in part, that you were not recommended for advancement or 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 | 03377-09
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. You were honorably discharged from active duty and at that time you were assigned an RE-4 ' 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.