Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9261 13
Original file (NR9261 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 5S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

BC
Docket No: 09261-13
31 July 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 July 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 StatUres',
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 5 June 2001. On 24 July 2006, you
were convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) of assault
consummated by a battery and sentenced to reduction in pay grade
and 60 days restriction. On 2 November 2011, you were honorably
discharged from active duty while serving in pay grade E-5 and
assigned a waivable RE-3M (non-retention on active duty) reentry
code.

The Board found the RE-3M reentry code is required when an
individual is discharged at the expiration of his term of
enlistment and is not recommended for retention in his current
rate. You were assigned the most favorable reentry code under
your circumstances. The only other reentry code which could
have been assigned was RE-4 (not recommended 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,
Rei

+ ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
‘ Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9109 13

    Original file (NR9109 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR6745 13

    Original file (NR6745 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2014. In this regard, you were assigned the most favorable reenlistment 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 | CY2010 | 10699-10

    Original file (10699-10.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. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reentry code. 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 | NR2098 14

    Original file (NR2098 14.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. In this regard, _ you were assigned the appropriate reentry code based on your circumstances. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and desire to change your reentry code.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11131-09

    Original file (11131-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 2010. You were then assigned to a Navy Reserve unit. 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 | 04425-12

    Original file (04425-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 March 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. In this regard, you were assigned the most favorable reenlistment code based on your circumstances.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04036-09

    Original file (04036-09.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. As a result, on 21 June 2007, at the expiration of your enlistment, you were honorably discharged by reason of nonretention on active duty and were assigned an RE-3M reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0537 14

    Original file (NR0537 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 30 July -2014. Nevertheless, the Board concluded those factors insufficient to warrant a change in the reentry code based on non-recommendation for retention in pay grade E-3. 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

    Original file (NR4355 13.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 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 | CY2013 | NR9446 13

    Original file (NR9446 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...