DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

 

RECO-RDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TJR
Docket No: 3524-01
16 July 2001

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:

Secretary of the Navy

Subj:

CORD OF

Ref:

(a) 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, a
former enlisted member of the United States Navy, filed enclosure
(1) with this Board requesting, in effect, changes in her
reenlistment code and narrative reason for separation.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Brezna, Dunn, and  
Mackey,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 10
July 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

3. The Board, having 
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice finds as
follows:

r\eviewed all the facts of record pertaining

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all

administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.

C . On 27 October 2000 Petitioner enlisted in the Delayed Entry

Program of the Naval Reserve. On that same date, she stated that
there were no civil charges pending against her.
enlisted in the Navy on 7 November 2000.

She then

d. On 5 December 2000 Petitioner advised LN2 B, the frauds and

waiver paralegal at Recruit Training Command, that she had an
active arrest warrant for a domestic assault which occurred on 1
June 2000.
warrant.
This request was denied, but LN2 B was informed that
Petitioner would have to appear before a judge once a court date
was set during the next three to four weeks.

LN2 B then tried to obtain a copy of the arrest

During my interview,
motivated, however,
knowledge of the warrant prior to entry.
with (Petitioner's) father,
to resolve the issue of the domestic assault prior to her
entry into the Navy.

I found (Petitioner) to be very
she  was not honest about having

Also, I had spoken
who stated that they were trying

f. Subsequently, Petitioner was processed for an

administrative separation by reason of fraudulent enlistment. On
28 December 2000 Petitioner was issued an uncharacterized entry
level separation, and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
There is no indication in the record that Petitioner had any
other problems in recruit training during her brief period of
service.

g. On 30 December 2000 Petitioner was served with an arrest
warrant for misdemeanor domestic assault and ordered to appear
before a judge on 8 January 2001.
Subsequently, on 15 February
2001, Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty and the charge was
dismissed.

h. In her application,

Petitioner contends that she was

unaware that the arrest warrant had been issued until she called
home after four weeks in recruit training, and she then
immediately informed LN2 B of this development.

i. An RE-4 reenlistment code must be issued to an individual

An RE-3E

separated by reason of fraudulent enlistment.
reenlistment code may be assigned to individuals separated by
reason of erroneous enlistment.
appropriate if an enlistment would not have occurred had the
relevant facts been known,
fraudulent conduct on the part of the indiviudal.
separated for this reason may also receive an RE-4 reenlistment
code, which means that the individual is not recommended for
reenlistment.

and it was not the result of

This reason for separation is

An individual

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.

The Board initially notes that Petitioner served without
disciplinary infractions,
reason of fraudulent enlistment because it was believed that she
knew about the arrest warrant at the time of her enlistment.
However, she now denies that she had any knowledge of the warrant
at that time, and states that she only became aware .of its
existence when she called home from recruit training.

and that she was only separated by

Along

2

these lines, it is clear that she is the one who brought this
information to the attention of authorities at RTC, in an effort
to rectify the problem.
In this regard, the Board believes that
had Petitioner known about the warrant for her arrest at the time
of her enlistment, she would have disclosed this information at
that time.
The Board also notes that nearly five months elapsed
from the date of the incident until the date of Petitioner's
enlistment, and she was not served with the warrant until after
she was discharged.
Finally, the Board cannot ignore the fact
that the charges on which the warrant was based were later
dismissed.

Accordingly, the Board believes that Petitioner did not have
knowledge of the arrest warrant at the time of her enlistment and
therefore did not commit a fraudulent enlistment.
However, it
does not appear that she would have been enlisted had recruiting
authorities known of the arrest warrant.
Therefore, the Board
concludes that the narrative reason for separation should be
changed to erroneous enlistment.
code is authorized by regulatory guidance for individuals who are
separated by reason of erroneous enlistment, and given
Petitioner's overall record,
reenlistment code is more appropriate
code now of record.

the Board concludes that an RE-3E

Since an RE-3E reenlistment

than the RE-4 reenlistment

RECOMMENDATION:

a.

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing

her narrative reason for separation and reenlistment code to
erroneous enlistment and  
separation and reenlistment code now of record.

RE-3E, respectively, vice the reason for

b.

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.

C .

That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's

naval record be returned to the Board,
this Report of Proceedings,
maintained for such purpose,
part of Petitioner's naval record.

together with a copy of

file-
for retention in a confidential  
with no cross reference being made a

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.

eeALAN  E. GOLDSM H

Acting Recorder

ROBERT D. 
Recorder

ZSALMAN

3

ZSAIMAN

ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Acting Recorder

ROBERT D. 
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 Regulation, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
has been approved by the Board on
authority of reference (a),
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

\

Executive D

4

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

1000 NAVY PENTAGON

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-1000

Dear 

Commande

This refers to your application dated April  

correction of your naval record.

14,1999, for

I have reviewed and approved the recommendation of the Board

forcorrection  of Naval Records to deny relief in your case.
Within 90 days, you may request the Secretary of Defense to
reconsider this decision, pursuant to Department of Defense

* Directive 7050.6.

Subject: Military Whistleblower Protection.

fficial

Office of the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs)