D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V Y  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

2 N A W  ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

TRG 
Docket No:  1172-99 
3 September 1999 

From: 
To : 

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
Secretary of the Navy 

Sub j : 

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 

Ref: 

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

Encl : 

(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
(2) Case Summary 
(3) Subject's naval record 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) , Petitioner, an 
enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed 
enclosure  (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment 
code be changed. 

2.  The Board, consisting of Mr. Mazza, Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. 
Taylor, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice 
on 31 August 1999 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. 

Enclosure  (1) was filed in a timely manner. 

c.  Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 15 June 1993 at age 

9 and served in a satisfactory manner for over four years. He 
.hen received a poor performance evaluation for the period 16 
December 1997 to 15 June 1998.  The evaluation comments state 
that he requires occasional supervision and guidance, but 
exhibits potential for growth. 

d.  Petitioner's performance evaluation for the period 

ending 14 November 1998 is adverse in that he was assigned 
marginal marks in several categories and an adverse mark of 1.0 
in personal job accomplishment/initiative.  The individual trait 
average was 1.86 and he was not recommended for advancement or 
retention in the Navy.  The evaluation comments state, in part, 
as rollows: 

... level of performance has greatly diminished during 
this reporting period.  (He) has received written and 
numerous verbal counseling on personal accountability 
and job responsibilities, and has been remained that he 
is accountable for his actions and that "no short cuts" 
will be tolerated in the care of his patients.  Many of 
the medical records in his care were found to be in 
general disorder.  Only vaguely aware of the medical 
readiness of his Marines, he routinely avoids the 
Battalion Aid Station and requires prompting to see 
patients and complete assigned tasks. 

e.  Petitioner was released from active duty on 14 November 
1998 with his service characterized as honorable.  At that time 
he was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 
reenlistment code. 

f.  Petitioner submitted a rebuttal to the 14 November 1998 

evaluation on 15 November 1999.  In the rebuttal he states that 
he had a personal conflict with a chief petty officer, none of 
his superiors had much of an opportunity to observe him and he 
received a meritorious mast in 1997.  He contends, in effect, 
that the evaluation is unjust because it will prevent service in 
the reserves and will cause problems in reaching his goal of 
becoming a police officer. 

g.  With his application, Petitioner has submitted 

statements from a senior chief corpsman and a third class 
corpsman.  The senior chief states that Petitioner worked for him 
during the period March 1997 to April 1998 and he was a 
competent, hardworking, and reliable corpsman.  The third class 
petty officer states that Petitioner worked for him and did an 
excellent job, but was not liked by a chief petty officer. 
The record shows that Petitioner has completed a police academy 
and has passed the examination to become a police officer. 
Petitioner's mother states that he is now a reserve police 
officer, but was not hired for a permanent position because of 
questions about the RE-4 reenlistment code. 

CONCLUSION: 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the 
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable 
action.  The Board notes that Petitioner was required to perform 
his job to the satisfaction of his superiors and did not do so. 
The letters of reference from the senior chief and the petty 
officer indicate that they had a different perception of his 
performance of duty.  However, the senior chief did not observe 
Petitioner after April 1998.  Given the circumstances, the Board 
believes that insufficient evidence exists to show that the 

evaluation was improper and the evaluation should remain in the 
record. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board notes that Petitioner 
served over five years on active duty and received substandard 
evaluations only in the last year of his service.  The Board 
concludes that the overall quality of his service outweighs the 
negative aspects and no useful purpose is now served by the RE-4 
reenlistment code.  This is especially true if the reenlistment 
code would preclude service as a police officer.  Therefore, the 
Board concludes that the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 14 
November 1998 should now be changed to RE-1. 

The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings 
should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future 
reviewers will understand why he was assigned an RE-1 
reenlistment code, contrary to the recommendation in the last 
performance evaluation. 

RECOMMENDATION : 

a.  That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that 
on 14 November 1998 he was assigned an RE-1 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. 

lgF/y 

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN 
Rac-rd~r 

ALAN E. GOLDSM TH 
Acti ng 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. 

,.