DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
	                                                                BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
				2 NAVY ANNEX
	WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100

	TRG
Docket No: 4258-07
11 December 2007

From:	Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:	Secretary of the Navy

Subj:

Ref:	(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

EnCL:	(1) Case Summary
(2)	Subject’s naval record

1.	Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former Sailor, filed an application with this Board requesting that his RE-4 reenlistment code be changed.

2.	The Board, consisting of Ms.  Ms. and Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 December 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3.	The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record Pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:

a.	Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b.	Although it appears that Petitioner’s application was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider the application on its merits.

c.	Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 21 July 1994 at age
23.	He then served without incident for more than 40 months. At that time, he was charged with an unauthorized absence of about 19 days. On 2 March 1997, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence of about 19 days. The punishment imposed was restriction and a suspended reduction in rate. The performance evaluation for the period ending 15 June 1998 is adverse with a 1.0 mark in military bearing/character and he was not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy. He was released from active duty on 31 July 1998 with his service characterized as honorable. At that time, he was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

d.	Petitioner states in his application that he was home on leave in the United States when he became seriously ill. Because of various communication problems, he was not able to properly inform his command of his situation. He states that as soon as he was able to travel he returned to his command in Japan. At that time, he was 19 days over leave. it is clear that Petitioner would have been given the opportunity to tell his side of the story to the commanding officer prior to the NJP. Apparently, the commanding officer did not believe his story.

e.	Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is not recommended for retention in their last performance evaluation. Since Petitioner has been treated no differently than others in his situation, the Board believed that the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code is supported by the record.

f.	Petitioner desires a change in the reenlistment code so that he can again serve in the military.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial favorable action. Since the offense which led to the NJP and the adverse performance evaluation is an isolated event in an otherwise good record, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is now served by the RE-4 reenlistment code and it should be changed to an RE-i reenlistment code.

The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reasons for the change in the RE-4 reenlistment code.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 to show that on 31 July 1998 he was assigned an RE—i reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.

b. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.

4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN	BRIAN J. GEORGE
Recorder	Acting Recorder

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director