Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08475-10
Original file (08475-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TAL
Docket No: 8475-10
15 April 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 13 April 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 and began a period of active duty on
27 February 1995 at age 20. On 30 September 2009, you were
notified that you were being detached for cause (DFC) due to
substandard performance. On 9 December 2009, you signed an
Administrate Remarks counseling stating you were DFC and warned
that further substandard performance could result in
administrative separation. On 27 February 2010, you were
honorably released from active duty. You were not recommended
for retention or reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reentry

code.

 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to change your reentry code for possible reenlistment
in the armed forces. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
Factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reentry
code given the non-recommendation for reenlistment which was
sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4. Accordingly,
your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

Fach branch of the armed forces has established its own criteria
for enlistment within the provisions of federal law. The reentry
code assigned by the Navy is not binding upon the other services,
which are free to accept or reject an application on the basis of
their own standards, If another branch of service decides to
.fwaive your reentry ‘code and accept you for enlistment, the Navy

; will not object. i ;

$

;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 efficial 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02838-11

    Original file (02838-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 2011. If another branch of service decides to waive your reentry code and accept you for enlistment, the Navy will not object. 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 | CY2009 | 11523-09

    Original file (11523-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 2 December 2009 and 30 March 2010 with attachments and the Memorandum for the Record dated 29 June 2010, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08513-10

    Original file (08513-10.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 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 | 08273-10

    Original file (08273-10.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 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 | CY2014 | NR12661 14

    Original file (NR12661 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 3 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. 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 | 07435-10

    Original file (07435-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 2011. The reentry code assigned by the Navy is not binding upon the other services, which are free to accept or reject an application on the basis of ‘their own standards# If another branch of service decides to ‘waive your reentryt code and accept you for enlistment, the Navy will not object. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08895-10

    Original file (08895-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof 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 material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05754-10

    Original file (05754-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 February 2011. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07949-10

    Original file (07949-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 6 June 2006, your recommendation for advancement was withdrawn due to substandard performance.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5819 13

    Original file (NR5819 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2014. On 30 September 2011, you received an honorable characterization of service at the end of your enlistment, and were assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry 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.