Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09853-10
Original file (09853-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
REC
Docket No: 09853-10
8 October 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 5 October 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 on 13 March 1989. On 11 December 1992,
you were honorably discharged from active duty while serving in
pay grade E-4 and were not recommended for reenlistment. On

25 January 1997, you were separated from the Navy Reserve with an
honorable discharge, however, you were not recommended for
retention.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your overall record
of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment code. In
this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is authorized when an
individual is discharged at the expiration of his term of active
obligated service and is not recommended for retention.
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,

te ® we \
: ash : ; Ww. i an PFE
Executive D or

he ee, ee

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01070-10

    Original file (01070-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. You were counseled and informed that you would receive a reenlistment code of RE-4 upon your separation as you were not recommended for retention.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00042-10

    Original file (00042-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TAL Docket No: 042-10 12 October 2010 ee. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 2010. @pnsequently, 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 | 01181-10

    Original file (01181-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 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. On 18 June 1993, you were honorably discharged from active duty while serving in pay grade E-3.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00828-10

    Original file (00828-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. 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 | 08879-09

    Original file (08879-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2010. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when 4 Sailor is geparated at the expiration of his term of active obligated service and is 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 | 00564-10

    Original file (00564-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 LIyUustice., You reenlisted in the Navy on 14 May 1984. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of conviction by SPCM of drug abuse and misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00345-10

    Original file (00345-10.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 September 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. The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 19 March 1984, after more than three years of honorable service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03154-09

    Original file (03154-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, 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 You enlisted in the Navy on 20 August 1985, and served without disciplinary incident until 18 November 1986, when you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10600-09

    Original file (10600-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicabie statutes, regulations, and policies. On 27 Pebruary 2007 you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason OL erroneous entry due to the diagnosed psychiatric problems. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05442-09

    Original file (05442-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of . 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.