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



                                     TRG
                                                         Docket No: 8102-00
                                                          29 May 2001









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

     Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL P~ECORD 0


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

     End:  (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
             (2) Case Summary
             (2) Subject’s naval record

     1.    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
     former enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed
     enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her record be corrected
     to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code
     assigned on 26 May 1989.

     2.    The Board, consisting of Mr. McPartlin, Ms. Hare and Ms.
     LeBlanc, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on
     15 May 2001 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 review the application on its merits.

          c.      Petitioner enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 24 February
     1986 at age 25. She reported to active duty on 1 May 1986,
     completed her initial training, and was released from active duty
     on 1 October 1986. She then remained a drilling reservist until
     she reported for 19 months of active duty on 23 February 1988.
     She reported to her first duty station on 1 May 1988.

          d.      The enlisted performance evaluation for the period 1 May
     1988 to 31 July 1988 shows that she was assigned an adverse mark
     of 2.0 in rate knowledge and adverse marks of 1.0 in reliability,
     military bearing, personal behavior and the overall evaluation was
     1.0. She was not recommended for advancement or retention in the Navy.
     Subsequently~ she acknowledged counseling concerning her substandard
     performance. In the next performance evaluation, for the period 1
     August 1988 to 31 January 1989, she was assigned adverse marks of 2.0
     in rate knowledge and reliability. The remainder of the assigned marks
     were 3.2 in rate knowledge and 3.0 in all other categories. These
     marks are marginal but not adverse. The evaluation comments state that
     she had made progress since the counseling and the previous
     evaluation. However, she was still not recommended for advancement or
     retention in the Navy.

           e.    On 1 May 1989, Petitioner was notified of separation
     processing due to substandard performance. At that time, she stated “I
     do not object to this separation.” On 13 May 1989 the commanding
     officer directed a general discharge by reason of unsatisfactory
     performance. She was issued a general discharge on 26 May 1989. At
     that time, she acknowledged that she was not recommended for
     reenlistment and would be assigned an RE—4 reenlistment code.

           f.    On 5 December 1989 the Naval Military Personnel Command
     informed the command that Petitioner had been discharged erroneously
     because she did not meet the criteria for processing due to
     unsatisfactory performance. In this regard, a member must have either
     two consecutive evaluations with marks of 1.0 in military or rating
     performance, or overall ratings of 2.0 or less. The message states
     that the first evaluation met the criteria, but the second evaluation
     “not only showed an improving trend, but raised (her) marks above
     those adverse enough to document unsat performance ....“. The message
     was sent to provide the command with “lessons learned”, but no further
     action was taken, and Petitioner was never advised that she had been
     erroneously discharged.

           g.    Character of service is based, in part, on conduct and
     overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during
     periodic evaluations. Petitioner’s conduct mark average was 2.0. A
     minimum average mark of 3.0 was required at the time of Petitioner’s
     separation for a fully honorable characterization of service.

           h.    When the Board finds an individual was erroneously
     discharged it must grant thorough and fitting relief. When confronted
     with similar cases in the past, the Board has set aside the discharge
     and allowed constructive service until the expiration of the
     individual’s enlistment or active duty obligation. Any pay for such
     constructive service is offset by


                                      2
civilian earnings during the period.

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 her discharge was in error and is aware that no other reason for
discharge fits the circumstances of her case. Since an error occurred, the
Board concludes that thorough and fitting relief requires a correction to
the record to show that she was not discharged on 26 May 1989 but continued
to serve on active duty until 22 September 1989, when her 19 month active
duty obligation would have expired.

However, it is clear that Petitioner would not have met the requirement for
a 3.0 average mark in military behavior, even if she had been evaluated and
assigned a mark of 3.0 in that category after the date of her last
evaluation on 31 January 1989. Therefore, the characterization on her
release from active duty would have been under honorable conditions, and
she would have been issued a general discharge at the end of her military
obligation on 22 February 1994.

Concerning the reenlistment code, the Board concludes that her record of
substandard performance was sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code on 22 September 1989.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that she was not
discharged on 20 May 1989 but continued to serve on active duty until 22
September 1989 when she was released from active duty with her service
characterized as being under honorable conditions, and the record be
further corrected to show that she was issued a general discharge at the
end of her military obligation on 23 February 1994.

b. That her request for change in the reenlistment code be denied.

c. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the
Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from
Petitioner’s record and that no such entries or material be added to the
record in the future.

d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner’s naval record
be returned to the Board, together with this Report of Proceedings, for
retention in a confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.


                                      3
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.
                                                                —‘7
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN      ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
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.




                                                 tor


























                                      4