DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Decket. No: 7623-10
27 May 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 24 May 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 22 September 2004 at age 19 and
served without disciplinary incident. About three months later,
on 4 January 2005, you submitted a written statement regarding
your homosexuality and expressing your desire to be separated
from the Navy because you felt that hiding it affected you
emotionally and mentally. Subsequently, you were processed for
an administrative separation. At that time you did not object to
or submit a statement of rebuttal to the separation. Your
commanding officer recommended you be separated with an honorable
discharge. On 11 January 2005 the discharge authority approved
this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to
assign you an RE-4 reenlistment code.
On 25 January 2005, while serving in paygrade E-2, you were
honorably discharged. At that time you were not recommended for
retention or reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment
code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to change your reenlistment code so that
you may join the Army. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your
reenlistment code because of your nonrecommendation for
retention. Further, the Board concluded that your limited period
of service of less than five months while serving in paygrade E-2
and your nonrecommendation for reenlistment were sufficient to
support the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code, which is
authorized by regulatory guidance. Accordingly, your application
has been denied.
The Board suggested that you may wish to apply for a waiver of
your RE-4 reenlistment code with branches of the armed forces
other than the Navy.
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,
\s
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Digvedtijo
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07612-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 May 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. At that time you were not recommended for retention or reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03702-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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 | CY2007 | 06323-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The reporting senior stated, in part, as follows: (Member) requires direct supervision to get satisfactory results.... he takes no ownership of any actions and constantly makes excuses for his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07207-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in, executive session, considered your application on 13 May 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 | CY2009 | 03173-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 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 | CY2010 | 05298-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 2011. You were not recommended for retention or reenlistment and 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 .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07360-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 April 2013. 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 | 08006-07
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. It also considered the medical record submitted in support of your case which states, in part, that presently there is no evidence of a personality disorder, and that the resolution of the diagnosed symptoms were likely due to your situational changes. Nevertheless, the Board concluded...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08110-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code because of your disciplinary...
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...