DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BC
Docket No: 00324-14
10 March 2014
pear
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 26 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 28 May 2003. Between 1 June and 14 September 2010, you
were charged with and found guilty of simple battery by the San
Diego Superior Court. On 3 November 2010, you received
counseling concerning your civil conviction. On 21 March 2011,
you requested to reenlist and were denied by Marine Corps
Headquarters due to your failure to demonstrate high standards
of leadership, professional competence and assumption of
responsibilities. You signed and acknowledged an administrative
remarks page (NAMVC 118(11)) that you would be assigned an RE-4
reentry code upon your separation. You were separated on 1
April 2011, with an honorable discharge and assigned an RE-4.
The Board did not accept your unsubstantiated contention to the
effect that you were wrongfully accused of simple battery and
that you pleaded guilty of that offense on the advice of
civilian counsel, who led you to believe that the charges “would
not reach” your military record.
In view of the foregoing, and as you have not demonstrated it
would be in the interest of justice for the Board to assign you
a more favorable reentry code, 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,
OR ESD. ane
ROBERT D. ALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05199-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06786-07
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 on 11 June 1991 at age 19. Unfortunately, on 9 January 2006, the discharge...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0289 14
A three- -member panel of the Board ‘for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your a application on 12 March 2014. The Board found that the assignment of an RE-1C reentry code was warranted by the counseling entry of 15 February 2008. 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 | 10195-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 2011. Your commanding officer agreed with the ADB’s finding and recommendation, and on 4 March 2010, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service due to misconduct {COSO) , and assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reentry code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0446 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2014. 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR9174 13
You requested that your “MBK5” {expiration of term of service) separation code and “RE-1A" (eligible for reenlistment code} reentry code issued on 22 May 2011 be changed on your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). , R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2014. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0182 14
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 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0680 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 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 | CY2014 | NR0258 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application-on 12 March 2014. The fact that civil authorities dismissed the charge of DUI does not invalidate the NUP you received for this: offense. 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 | NR0649 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 June 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. You were separated on 15 July 2011, with an honorable discharge due to non-retention on active duty and assigned an RE-3C (when directed by...