DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 11028-10
20 October 2010
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 19 October 2010. 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 3 April 2001 at age 20 and served
without disciplinary incident. However, your record contains an
administrative remarks entry dated 13 August 2001 in which you
were counselled regarding deficiencies in your performance
and/or conduct, specifically, your failure to complete family
care plan arrangements. Shortly thereafter, you submitted a
family care plan certificate which stated that you could not
comply with the Navy’s dependent care policy which made you
ineligible for deployment worldwide. As a result of this
action, on 16 August 2001, you submitted a written request for
an administrative separation due to parenthood. Your request
was approved and the discharge authority directed an
uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of erroneous
entry. On 30 August 2001,
while serving in paygrade E-1, you were so separated and
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 have your RE-4 reenlistment code
changed so that you may reenlist. Nevertheless, the Board
‘concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change
fin your reenlistment code. The Board concluded that your
failure to complete recruit training and noncompliance with the
Navy's dependent care policy were sufficient to support the
assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. Further, such a code
is authorized by regulatory guidance and normally assigned to
Sailors who are serving in paygrade E-1, have not completed a
full term of enlistment, and are separated due to the
convenience of the government. Finally, there is no evidence in
the record, and you submitted none, to demonstrate that your
parenthood situation has changed or that you are now able to be
deployed. Absent this evidence, the Board concluded that the
RE-4 reenlistment code is appropriate. Accordingly, your
application has been denied.
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. EAN PRE
Executive Di tio
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13656-10
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with Ghd Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed. Since an RE-3B reenlistment code is authorized by regulatory guidance for a Sailor who is separated for this reason, the Board concludes that an RE-3B reenlistment code is more appropriate than the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11054-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on $ June 2009. After review, the separation authority directed an honorable discharge due te parenthood or custody of minor children: and the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment .code.-.You--« were so discharged on 13 September 2006. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00462-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 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. Although your last performance evaluation is not filed in your record, the Board believed that the diagnosis of dependency and your refusal of...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01316
ND04-01316 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040818. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the Applicant’s case, the separation authority, COMNAVPERSCOM, directed that the characterization of service should be the “type warranted by service record.” A review of the Applicant’s records indicated an honorable discharge was warranted.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10755-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her reenlistment code be changed. Nevertheless, she was administratively processed for separation by reason of parenthood due to her inability to comply with the NFC program. On 23 February 2004 the discharge authority, Navy Personnel Command (NPC), directed a reenlistment code of RE-3B, or a RE-4, if warranted by the service record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07171-00
The Board also notes that even though Petitioner's trait averages differ on his enlisted performance record and his performance evaluation, both marks exceed the required average of 2.0 which is needed for a The Board further fully honorable characterization of service. notes Petitioner's only performance evaluation of record in which he was recommended for retention and promotion and believes that the sole reason for separation was due to him being nondeployable because he could not find...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500500
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or uncharacterized/entry level separation and the reason for the discharge be changed to “hardship (parenthood)”. The record further reveals that in reviewing the Applicant’s request a review of her service record indicated she should also be processed for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01630-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2010. You were notified that you were being administratively separated due to parenthood with an honorable discharge and assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00009
ND03-00009 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020925, requested the reason for the discharge be changed to involuntary. 011218: CNPC directed the Applicant's discharge with type warranted by service record by reason of convenience of the Government due to parenthood or custody of minor children, with a separation code of “KDG”. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03210-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You contend in your application, that the discharge by reason of parenthood is in error because you should have been discharged by reason of hardship. You believe that the reason of...