DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
SIN
Docket No: 5559-14
30 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 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 28 April 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
LH IUStLCE:.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 25 April 1984. On 19 August 1996, you received
nonjudicial punishment for making a false official statement.
You remained on active duty until you were honorably discharged
at the expiration of your enlistment with a narrative reason of
“non-retention on active duty” on 17 June 1997. 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 the reason you were not permitted to
reenlist. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant a change in the reentry code. In this
regard, an RE-4 reentry code is authorized when a Marine is
separated at the expiration of their term of active obligated
service and is not recommended for retention. Additionally,
under the circumstances of your case, the code is required when
the narrative reason for separation is “non-retention on active
duty.” 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
evidence 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 ox injustice.
Sinceyely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
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 | 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 | NR4508 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5859 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6977 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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...
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2591 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on | 18 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1122 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 2015. in this regard, you were assigned the most favorable reentry code based on your circumstances. The RE-3C reentry code may not prohibit reenlistment, but requires.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4513 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2015. Arter 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...
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.