DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
REC
Docket No: 00427-12
6 February 2012
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 1 February 2012. 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 25 October 2005. On 10
February 2010, you submitted a request for a conditional release
to affiliate with another branch of service. On 16 March 2010,
the approving authority approved your conditional release with a
stipulation that it be accomplished by 9 June 2010. However,
you failed to affiliate. Therefore, your commanding officer
recommended that you be separated with a general discharge based
on your unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve by
missing 16 drills. You were informed that you would receive a
reentry code of RE-4 for your failure to participate. On 2 June
2010, the discharge authority approved your commanding officer’s
recommendation. On 8 June 2010, you were discharged by reason
of unsatisfactory participation. At the time of your discharge,
an RE-4 reentry code was assigned.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth. However, the Board found that these factors were
not sufficient to warrant a change in your reentry code given
the fact that you were aware of the requirements to participate
in the drills and failed to do so. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Since your discharge is less than 15 years old, you may apply to
the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for a possible upgrade.
I have enclosed a copy of the NDRB’s application (DD Form 293)
for your convenience.
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,
\ DR anes
W. DEAN ‘PF
Executive Oo
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13164-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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. 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 | 11080-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 2010. On 13 June 1983, you were honorably discharged from the Navy Reserve and were recommended for reenlistment. 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 | CY2013 | NR6060 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 September 2014. 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 onthe applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01110 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 November 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 | CY2013 | NR968 13
The Board did not consider your request to upgrade your discharge and change your narrative reason for separation because you have not exhausted your administrative remedy of applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2013. On 16 February 2011, you were discharged with a general characterization of service due to unsatisfactory...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02286-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS Docket No: 2286-07 30 January 2008 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 30 January 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401649
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks a change to his RE-code.2. The Applicant contends he was wrongly discharged from a drilling status.The Applicant contends he was either present for the annotated missed drills or they were authorized absences. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00820-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 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 | CY2011 | 03776-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 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, record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00590-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 2010. Since your discharge is less than 15 years old, you may apply to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for a possible upgrade. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the exjystence of probable material error or injustice.