DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TUR
Docket No: 1919-14
26 February 2015
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 24 February 2015. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.
The Board: noted that you received counselling on three occasions
for disciplinary infractions and that you received nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) on two occasions. Your misconduct included
underage drinking, being intoxicated, absence from your appointed
place of duty, insubordination, having sexual intercourse with
someone other than your spouse, wrongful endangerment, reckless
driving, and destruction of government property. As a result of
your misconduct, on 9 July 2013, you were advised that you were
not recommended for retention, advancement, or reenlistment. In
this regard, on 13 July 2013, while serving in paygrade E-2, you
were honorably released from active duty, transferred to the
Marine Corps Reserve, and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to reenlist' in the Navy. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in
your case because of your repetitive misconduct and substandard
performance which resulted in counselling, two NJPs, and
nonrecommendation for retention or reenlistment. In this regard,
you were assigned the most appropriate reenlistment code for your
situation. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
Finally, the Board suggested that you may wish to apply fora
waiver of your RE-4 reenlistment code with branches of the armed
forces other than the Navy/Marine Corps.
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
within one year from the date of the Board's decision. 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,
OBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2408 14
-A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4929 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 2015. 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, an RE-3C reentry code is authorized when a Marine is released from active duty, and is not recommended for reenlistment.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7192 14_Redacted
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. Further, an RE-3P reentry code is authorized when a Marine is discharged, due to failing the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR786 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 February 2015. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the reenlistment 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 | NR4069 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 2015. 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9579 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2015. 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. At that time you were assigned an RE-3P reentry code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR775 13
Since your discharge is less than 15 years old, you may apply to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for a change to your character of service and narrative reason for separation. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 October 2013. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6324 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2015. 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 appropriate reentry code based on your circumstances.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6347 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2015. Your allegations of error and injustice were 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5886 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2015. 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...