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

SMW
										Docket No: 1516-05 
										24 August 2005

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 August 2005. 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 on 27 June 2000 at age 21. On 8 July 2003 you received an enlisted performance evaluation, with an ending date of 15 June 2003, in which the reporting senior did not recommend you for retention or advancement. On 10 November 2003 you were counseled for failing the physical fitness readiness test and exceeding the Navy’s height and weight standards. On 4 December 2003 you received nonjudicial punishment for making a false official statement and being incapacitated for duty. In the last enlisted performance evaluation of 26 June 2004, you were again not recommended for retention or advancement.

On 26 June 2004 you were released from active duty while serving in pay grade E-3, due to completion of required active service. At that time you were assigned a RE-4 reenlistment code, which means that you were not eligible or recommended for reenlistment.

The Board noted the two substandard evaluations and the NJP, and was also aware that an RE-4 reenlistment code must be assigned to an individual serving in pay grade E-3 who is not recommended for
advancement. 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