> DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
_ 7015. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BJG
‘Docket No: 3577-13
20 February 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 19 February 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 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 20 August |
1990. You received nonjudicial punishment for larceny and
wrongful appropriation. On 18 August 1994, you completed your
active duty obligated service and were transferred to the Navy
Reserve. You were serving in pay grade E-3 and assigned an RE-4
(not recommended for retention) reentry.code. At the completion
of an initial. active duty service obligation, a Sailor must be |
serving in pay grade E-~3 and recommended for promotion to be
‘eligible for retention. On 23 November 1997, you completed your
Navy Reserve obligation, were honorably discharged in pay grade
E-3, and not recommended for reenlistment,
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
desire to change your reentry code. However, the Board
concluded that your reentry code should not be changed due to
your failure to meet professional growth criteria and non-
‘recommendation for retention. In view of the above, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members
of the panel willbe 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,
OR pen an) (Am
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN —
. Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6580-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2014. 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 completed your required active duty on 3 February 1999 in pay grade E-2, were honorably transferred to the Navy Reserve, and assigned an RE-4 (not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3550-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 February 2014. At the completion of an initial active duty service obligation, a Sailor must be serving in pay grade E-3 and recommended for promotion to be eligible 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 | CY2013 | NR4355 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2014. On 9 February 2010, you completed your active duty obligation in pay grade E-1, were honorably transferred to the Navy Reserve, and assigned an RE-4 (not. 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 | CY2014 | NR0397 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2014. Separation due ~ to unsuitability (personality disorder) with a general, characterization of service... You were so discharged on 1 November ; 1976, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3738-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session; considered your ‘application on 25 February 2014. Characterization of service is based in part on conduct marks assigned on a periodic basis. 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 | CY2012 | 13097 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2013. 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’...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3708-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval . You reenlisted in the Navy on 3 January 1985 after more than five years of prior honorable service. 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 | NR4751 13
You may apply to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). 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. 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 | NR4712 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR2540-13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7015S. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2014. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reentry code given your NJP, and the fact that you received a reentry code authorized by regulations.