DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
SIN
Docket No: 2626-14
6 April 2015
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 ao?
ih thres-membex,, panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ..
‘Records, sitting.in executive session, considered your .. a
‘application:on 25 March 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.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
15 May 2008. Although your record is incomplete, in that it does
not contain the documentation pertaining to your discharge. It
appears that you served without incident until your security
clearance was denied or revoked. On 31 January 2011, after being
afforded all of your procedural rights, you were honorably
discharged due to unsatisfactory performance. At that time, you
were assigned an RE-4 reentry code.
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 upgrade your discharge.
-Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant-changing your reentry code given the reason
you were discharged. Finally, an RE-4 reentry code must be
assigned to all Sailors discharged due to unsatisfactory
performance as a result of having there security clearance denied
or revoked. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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
eviderice within one year from the date of the Board‘’s decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its decision in your case. 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. ~
ROBERT J.
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05518-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 February 2011. 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 | CY2009 | 02548-09
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 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 | NR812 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 January 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04435-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 2011. 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. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to one in favor of an administrative honorable discharge due to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06102-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 2011. 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. On 6 May 2010 you were notified of pending separation action by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to the loss of your security clearance.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10663-09
‘ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2010. On 5 March 2004, you were notified that the Defense Security Service (DSS) investigation had denied you a security clearance. .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 | CY2009 | 11143-09
However, the Board concluded that your reenlistment code should not be changed, your pay grade of E-4 should not be reinstated, nor should your security clearance revocation documentation be removed because of your substandard performance and misconduct. The Board concluded that you were fortunate to receive a general characterization of service, because Sailors who are separated for misconduct normally receive an other than honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00887-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2010. 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 | NR2452 13
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The advisory recommended that his RE-4 reentry code not be changed in light of the loss of his security clearance. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by , ‘changing block 26 (Separation Code) of his DD Form 214 from “HHI” to “JBK”, and that biock 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) be changed from “Unsatisfactory Performance” to - *Completion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06720-07
Consequently, when applying f or a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.Sincerely,W. However, the member selection to Chief Petty Officer was removed by Chief Naval Personnel due to his security clearance being deny/revoke 31 August 2005 by the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility (DONCAF) . Reference (b), is requesting re-consideration in the finding to revoke and deny...