Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01312-11
Original file (01312-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON BC 20370-5100

 

BJG
Docket No: 1312-11
1 November 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 1 November 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
error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy and entered active duty on 15 August
2001. Your record is incomplete, but on 15 June 2004, you
received an adverse evaluation report which noted that you had
failed physical readiness standards and were not recommended
for retention. On 21 June 2004, you were counseled regarding
your failure of the Physical Readiness Test and warned that you
were ineligible for reenlistment. On 14 August 2005, you
completed your required active duty and were honorably released
to the Navy Reserve. You were assigned an RE-4 (not
recommended for retention) reentry code.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your honorable
service, deployment, and current desire to change your reentry
code. However, the Board concluded that you were correctly
assigned an RE-4 reentry code due to your physical readiness
issues and non-recommendation 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,

\ von |
Decutd Se
Executive tor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00211-11

    Original file (00211-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 2011. In this regard, an RE-4 reentry code is required when an individual is discharged at the expiration of his term of enlistment 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 | 07896-10

    Original file (07896-10.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 and policies. However, the Board concluded that you were correctly assigned the RE-4 reentry code due to your failure to participate in the Ready Reserve, and non-recommendation for retention. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04381-10

    Original file (04381-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2011. Your receipt of disability ratings from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was not considered probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material erres ar injustice .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10687-10

    Original file (10687-10.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 August 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 4 January 1999, you received NJP for failure to pay your government credit card bill.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04322-10

    Original file (04322-10.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 January 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5479 14

    Original file (NR5479 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 27 May 2015. 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 error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01335-11

    Original file (01335-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 November 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 | CY2011 | 02294-11

    Original file (02294-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 November 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 01516-05

    Original file (01516-05.rtf) 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, 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 27 June 2000 at age 21. In the last enlisted performance evaluation of 26...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01340-09

    Original file (01340-09.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, and policies. Additionally, you were warned that failure of a third (or greater) PFA within a four year period could result in administrative discharge action. in this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is authorized when a Sailor is discharged due to PFA failure and not recommended for retention.