DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARi, FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC
20370-5100
TRG
Docket No:
17 October 2001
2109-01
Chairman, Board for Correction of
Secretary of the Navy
Naval
Records
RECORD OF
(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
(1) Case Summary
(2) Subject's naval record
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Encl:
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
1 .
former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this
Board requesting that his record be corrected by changing the
4 reenlistment code issued on 19 April 1985.
RE-
The Board, consisting of Mr. Adams, Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr.
2.
Morgan, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 10 October 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record.
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
Documentary material considered by
The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
3.
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,
waive the statute of limitations and review the application on
its merits.
it is in the interest of justice to
C .
Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 20 January 1983
after more than 12 years of active service on prior enlistments.
The record shows that his son was born on 13 May 1981 and a
daughter was born on 10 August 1983.
Apparently, his wife
deserted the family and left the children in his care.
February 1985, he was recommended for discharge by reason of
parenthood as evidenced by his unavailability for deployment,
inability to perform duties assigned,
to parental responsibilities.
Naval Personnel directed discharge and the assignment of an RE-3B
or an RE-4 reenlistment code, as appropriate.
On 14 March 1985, the Bureau of
and repetitive absences due
On 12
d.
The performance evaluation for the period 16 August 1984
to 12 April 1985 states, in part, as follows:
.
.
. (Petitioner) was not required to perform any
.
professional duties during the reporting period.
was necessitated because of family difficulties which
required his full time presence with legal dependents.
. The nature of (his) difficulties make continued
.
.
.
This
service in the Navy undesirable_
.
.
. (he) created an administrative burden on this
.
command to complete and process all the requirements‘
Furthermore, his personal
regarding his discharge.
difficulties are of a long term and recurring nature.
To preclude any further unnecessary administrative
processing, he is not recommended for advancement,
retention, or reenlistment.
Petitioner was honorably discharged on 19 April 1995.
time, he acknowledged that he was not recommended for
reenlistment and would be assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
At that
e.
Petitioner states in his application that his problems
were beyond his control because he was stationed aboard a ship
homeported in Japan and there was no one to care for his
children.
His children are now grown and he desires a change in
his reenlistment code so that he can join the Air National Guard.
f.
Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-3B or an
RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged because
of parenthood.
individual is eligible for reenlistment except for the
disqualifying factor of parenthood.
An RE-3B reenlistment code means that an
CONCLUSION:
The Board notes that Petitioner served in an excellent
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
manner until his wife deserted the family.
was unhappy with the situation,
problem was the primary reason for the final
evaluation.
useful purpose is now served by the RE-4 reenlistment code and it
should be changed to an RE-3B reenlistment code.
alert recruiters to verify that the parenthood problem no longer
exists.
adverse performance
the Board concludes that no
it is clear that the parenthood
Given the circumstances,
Although his command
This code will
The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings
2
should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future
reviewers will understand the reason for the change in the
reenlistment code.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by issuing a DD
a.
Form 215 to show that on 19 April 1985 he was assigned an RE-3B
reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.
That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's
b.
naval record.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
4.
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
Recorder
ALAN E. GOLDSMITH-
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
th_" Navy.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07204-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2O370-51OODocket No: 07204-06 23 January 2007From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD OFRef: (a) 10 U.S.C. Administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of parenthood. That Petitioners s naval record be corrected to show that on 9 July 2002 Petitioner was issued a RE-3B reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06065-02
provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a ber in the Navy, filed an application with ng that her reenlistment code be changed to . The Board excellent service, RE-4 reenlistment reenlistment due t Board believes tha reenlistment code less restrictive R recruiters that he reenlistment is au The Board further should be filed in undl reviewers will reenlistment code. Given the circumstances, the ncludes that this Report of Proceedings 'etitioner's naval record so that all future stand the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06423-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00TRGDocket No:6423-0722 May 2008From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OFRef: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed.2. Petitioner’s case was considered by the Naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07857-01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Naval Reserve filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 18 February 2000. 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 reason for the assignment of the RE-3B reenlistment code. That...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02760-04
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member in the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show thata better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 27 December 1999.2. In connection with this processing, she elected to waive the right to have her case heard by an administrative discharge board. Regulations require the assignment of an RE-3B or an RE-4 reenlistment code when an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08485-06
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that her reenlistment code be changed.2 Board, consisting of Ms. Ms. and Ms. previewed Petitioner’s allegations error andinjustice on 9 January 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. The Board further concludes that this Report of proceedings...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13656-10
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with Ghd Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed. Since an RE-3B reenlistment code is authorized by regulatory guidance for a Sailor who is separated for this reason, the Board concludes that an RE-3B reenlistment code is more appropriate than the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06232-01
The majority 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 assignment of the RE-3B reenlistment code. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 18 December 1998 she was assigned an RE-3B reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. Since Petitioner has been treated no differently than others who failed to advance to E-3, the minority could...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10755-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her reenlistment code be changed. Nevertheless, she was administratively processed for separation by reason of parenthood due to her inability to comply with the NFC program. On 23 February 2004 the discharge authority, Navy Personnel Command (NPC), directed a reenlistment code of RE-3B, or a RE-4, if warranted by the service record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07171-00
The Board also notes that even though Petitioner's trait averages differ on his enlisted performance record and his performance evaluation, both marks exceed the required average of 2.0 which is needed for a The Board further fully honorable characterization of service. notes Petitioner's only performance evaluation of record in which he was recommended for retention and promotion and believes that the sole reason for separation was due to him being nondeployable because he could not find...