DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BC
Docket No: 03108-13
1 May 2014
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 April 2014. 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 and began a period of active duty on
8 January 2008, at age 20. On 3 March 2011, you received
nonjudical punishment (NJP) for three incidents of failure to go
to your appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful
order. On a special evaluation for the period of 15 July 2010
through 23 March 2011, you received two adverse performance
trait marks of 1.0 in military bearing/character and personal
job accomplishment/initiative. Ona periodic evaluation
your failure of the physical fitness assessment. It was also
noted on that evaluation that you had received three NJP’s and
were not recommended for retention. On your final evaluation
you were not recommended for retention or promotion in pay grade
E-2. On 7 January 2012, you were honorably discharged from
active duty while serving in pay grade E-2. You were assigned
an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reentry code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors present in your case,
including you contention that you should have been promoted to
pay grade E-3 while on terminal leave. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded those factors were insufficient to warrant a change in
“the reentry code based on your non-recommendation for retention
‘in pay grade E-2 and the fact that you received performance
trait marks of 1.0. In this regard, an RE-4 reentry code is
required when an individual is discharged at the expiration of
his term of enlistment while serving in pay grade E-2 and is not
recommended for retention or promotion. 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,
ctier> Genee
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9446 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded those factors were insufficient to warrant a change in the reentry code based on your non-recommendation for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05966-06
A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the report in question is not on file, however, a copy of the report is present in enclosure (1). We recommend the member’s reporting senior be required to correct the report by changing the promotion recommendation in block 45 to “Significant Problems” as required by reference (a), and the member should be required to sign the report and prepare a Statement to the Record if he so desires. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVY PERSONNEL...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08750-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 June 2002. 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 found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 13_04_27 CST 2001
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. 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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 11_59_57 CST 2001
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. 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 | CY2001 | 04591-00
The advisory opinion notes that the marks and comments in the performance evaluations were in accordance with Navy Personnel Command 2 regulations, and Petitioner has not submitted any evidence to show that the commanding officer abused his discretion. and the recommendation made by the commanding officer, the Board concludes that the NJP entry in the service record should be modified by deleting the charge under Article 133, UCMJ, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Therefore,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04079-04
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 13 June 2001 as a petty officer second class (DK2; E-5). However,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04551-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. 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 | 12014-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 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. Therefore, you were recommended for administrative separation with a general discharge due to unsuitability.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08298-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. reporting to this command member has had 2 larceny convictions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...