e& Trt AAVY
} Lede Eee
BOARD FOR MORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
707 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1004
ARLINGTON VA 72204-2490
This is in reference to your application For correction of your naval
zB three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August
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 ail material
submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered
the advisory opinion Furnished by the Naval Personnel Command (NPC)
“memo 5420 PERS 836/078 of 12 June 2014, a COPY of which was provided
to you on 26 June 2014, and is being provided to you now.
additionally, the Board aiso considered your response to the A/O on 10
However, 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 of injustice. In
this connection, the Board concurred with the comments contained in
the advisory opinion. accordingly, your application has been denied.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request. additionally, the Board notes that in response to your
question, what 1s 4 minority contract? A minority contract is defined
as an sndividual who, upon entry into the U.S armed Services, is 17
years old (a minority) and is willing to reenlist after their initial
contract expires. Then, and only then, if a service member reenlists
earlier than their contractual expiration date, they are then given
“constructive time” towards their years in service. Since your
contract was not @ minority contract, you aid not meet the eligibility
criteria for constructive credit” .
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 also important to keep in mind that a presumption of
regularity attaches to all official records. Consequentiy, 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,
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00823-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 March 2011. 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 regarding constructive service for completion of a minority enlistment. In your case, your minority enlistment expired on 25 January 1970.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3047 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 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. In this regard, an RE-3C reentry code is authorized when a Marine is ‘discharged at the expiration of their term of active obligated service and is not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7121 14
In your own words you state “my recruiter and classifier at MEPS both failed to make me aware of the bonus I was entitled to as per my rate (AIRC), and time of entry.” Enlistment bonuses are not a Docket No. In your case it was not offered and you voluntarily signed up without the incentive of an enlistment bonus. 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 | NR5643 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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 | CY2014 | NR3903 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 2014. In regard to your request for separation pay, the Board noted that this action was completed on 7 August 2013, and as such, no further consideration is warranted. 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 | NR8899 14
Your application claims “I was not counseled on the effects of my ability to transfer 9/11 education benefits prior to reenlistment. The Board concurs with the advisory opinion that changing your reenlistment contract from 3 years to 4 years will not satisfy the *service obligation for transferring your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits since you attempted the transfer in July 2014 vice May 2014. The Board has determined and agrees with the advisory opinion, that if you wish to be eligible to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3179 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 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 | CY1999 | 05889-98
5889-98 19 April 1999 Dear &$;:;: This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0879 14
COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490 BAN Docket No.NROO879-14 21 July 2614 A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 July 2014. Documentary material considered by *he 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6538 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 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...