DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 7518-10
31 March 2011
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 29 March 2011. 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
errer or injustice.
You entered active duty in the Navy on 15 March 1982. You
received nonjudicial punishment on three occasions for
unauthorized absence (five days), going from your appointed
place of duty (two specifications), and absence from your
appointed place of duty (two specifications). On 1 April 1985,
you were released from active duty and transferred to the
reserve component with a general characterization of service
based on your service record, and were assigned an RE-4 (not
recommended for retention) reenlistment code. On 15 February
1988, you were honorably discharged from the Naval Reserve and
were not recommended for reenlistment.
You are advised that at the end of a Sailor’s first enlistment,
he must be serving in pay grade E-4, or in pay grade E-3 and be
recommended for promotion.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
current desire to change your reenlistment code. However, the
Board concluded that you were correctly assigned the RE-4 due
to your misconduct, pay grade of E-3, and non-recommendation
for retention. In view of the above, your application has been
denied. The names ahd 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 1s 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,
\NorX
W. DEAN PF
Executive rector
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3108 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2014. It was also noted on that evaluation that you had received three NJP’s and were 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10658-10
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 20 October 1978, you received NIP for being UA for three days. 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 | 06642-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 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. On 23 July 1971, you were released from active duty while serving in pay grade E-3 and not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00322-11
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2011. Characterization of service is based, in part, on trait marks assigned on a periodic basis. 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 | 05254-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted Or your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policiés: After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07934-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 28 November 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the Your allegations of error and injustice were considered your application on proceedi ngs of this Board. Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals who fail to meet the professional growth criteria for reenlistment or who are not recommended for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06134-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 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 | CY2010 | 10735-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC Decket No: 10735-10 18 August 2011 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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05212-01
Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 15 November 2001. 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. ’ Consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06113-01
6113-01 7 January 2002 Dear This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United considered your application on Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 3 January 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The facts On...