DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMW
Docket No: 9305-07
30 May 2008

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 29 May 2008. 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.

On 10 December 2001, you enlisted in the Navy at age 23. On 16 June 2003, you were promoted to pay grade E-3. Based on the information currently contained in the record, it appears that you received three adverse performance evaluations during the period 16 July 2003 to 3 December 2005. On 18 January 2006, you were released from active duty under honorable conditions due to completion of required active service and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to members who are released from active duty due to completion of required active service and fail to meet professional growth criteria. To satisfy professional growth criteria for the first reenlistment, a member must be serving as a petty officer or in pay grade E-3 having passed an examination for advancement to pay grade E-4 and be currently recommended for advancement. Given your three consecutive adverse performance evaluations preceding your release from active duty, it appears that you were not recommended for advancement or
retention. Since you have been treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code. Accordingly, 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,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director