Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 08281-11
Original file (08281-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TOR
Docket No: 8283-11
18 August 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 16 August 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 Reserve on 3 August 1995 at age 17 and
began a period of active duty on 6 May 19956. Although your
record is incomplete, it does reflect that on 29 July 1999 you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for wrongful usé/possession
of controlled substances. The punishment imposed was reduction
to paygrade E-3 and a forfeiture of pay, all of which was
suspended. The record further reflects that you were to be
processed for an administrative separation due to the imposition
of the NUP. Nonetheless, the record does not reflect such
action. About eight months later, on 6 March 2000, it appears
that you agreed to remain on active duty for three months.

However, the reason for this three month extension is not
reflected in the record.

On 5 August 2000, while serving in paygrade E-4, you were
honorabiy released from active duty upon completion of your
required active service. At that time you were assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code. Subsequently, you were issued a Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214).
The Board, in its review of your record, although incomplete, and
application with attachments, carefully weighed ail potentially
mitigating factors, such as your period of satisfactory service
and desire to change your reenlistment code so that you may
enlist in another branch of service. It also considered the
administrative remarks (Page 13) entries provided with your
application and your assertion that due to clerical errors it was
incorrectly prepared. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your
reenlistment code because of your drug related misconduct which
resulted in an NUP and is sufficient to support the assignment of
an RE-4 reenlistment code, which is authorized and required by
regulatory guidance. The Board also concluded that you were
fortunate not to have been administratively processed for
separation as a result of your drug related misconduct of “zero
tolerance” of drug abuse in the Navy. Further, the Board
concluded that since the Page 13 was not included in your
official military personnel file, it could not be reviewed as
authentic evidence. Finally, the Board also noted that at the
time of your separation you acknowledged and/or verified, by your
signature and initials, the information contained on your DD Form
214, to include the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.
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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07996-07

    Original file (07996-07.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 September 2008. On 30 March 2000 you again received NUP for wrongful use of marijuana and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 30 days, a reduction in paygrade, and a $1,000 forfeiture of pay. 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 | CY2011 | 04736-11

    Original file (04736-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2012. 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 | CY2009 | 03173-09

    Original file (03173-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2009 | 06271-09

    Original file (06271-09.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. On 31 July 2004 you received NJP for assaulted consummated by battery and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to paygrade E-2, and a $1,412 forfeiture of pay. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08436-07

    Original file (08436-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The instruction states, in part, as follows: To satisfy professional growth criteria for the first reenlistment...the member must be: (1) serving as a petty officer or, (2) serving in paygrade E-3 having passed an examination for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02092-08

    Original file (02092-08.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code because of your disciplinary record which resulted in two NUPs, failure of professional growth criteria, and nonrecommendation for retention or reenlistment. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03837-10

    Original file (03837-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ~ application on 26 January 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reentry code is authorized when an individual is discharged at the expiration of his term of active obligated service...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05779-11

    Original file (05779-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered ky the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In this regard, you were assigned the appropriate reentry code based on your circumstances. 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 | CY2008 | 03731-08

    Original file (03731-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2009. 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 | 10212-10

    Original file (10212-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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...