DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0 TRG

Docket No: 4732-01
10 October 2001

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

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 an application with this
Board requesting that his record be corrected to show changes in
the reason for discharge and reenlistment code.

The Board, consisting of Mr. Harrison, Mr. Rothlein and Mr.

2.
Geisler, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 25 September 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.

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.

Petitioner's application to the Board was filed in a

timely manner.

C .

Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 15 July 1991. HE

served continuously on active duty and, for the most part, in an
excellent manner, until his discharge on 12 October 1999.
his service he was advanced to  
combatant swimmer (SEAL) and was designated a master naval
parachutist.

HTl (E-6) and qualified as a

During

d.

In the final performance evaluation, for the period 1

July 1999 to 12 October 1999,
mark of 1.0 in the category of military bearing/character, and

Petitioner was assigned an adverse

was not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy.
evaluation comments state, in part, as follows:

The

(his) military bearing

During this reporting period,
and conduct have fallen far below that expected of a
First Class Petty Officer.
skilled in Naval Special Warfare, he has required
excessive counseling and supervision to accomplish his
assigned duties and responsibilities.
to follow both verbal and written directives, and his
involvement with civil authorities have been a
discredit to the U. S. Naval Service.

Although knowledgeable and

. . . His failure

e.

The DD Form 214 shows that on 12 October 1999 Petitioner

was honorably discharged by reason of unsatisfactory performance
and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
completed 8 years, 2 months and 28 days of active service.

At that time he had

f.

and he tried everything in his power to prevent the

In. his application, Petitioner states that near the end
of his active service, he discovered that his wife was having an
affair
He states that he caught his wife in a
breakup of his marriage.
compromising situation and assaulted and severely injured the man
she was with.
civil charges were pending, and let him separate at the
expiration of his enlistment.
out his problems with civil authorities and has been able to save
his family.
contacted him about reenlisting in the Navy because of the
shortage of individuals trained in Special Warfare.
.

Several Naval Special Warfare representatives have

The command decided not to press charges because

He states that he has straightened

Attached to enclosure (2) is a letter to the Board,

dated91 June 2001
Three that states: in part, as follows:

from the Commanding Officer (CO), SEAL Team

This letter is submitted in support of

1.
(Petitioner's) BCNR request to change his DD Form 214
RE-4 Re-entry Code to allow for re-enlistment. As
(his) reporting senior at the time of his discharge, I
am thoroughly familiar with the events at the time. A
brief summary follows:
Special Warfare Center in July of 1999 for duty as a
Special Warfare instructor.
Shortly thereafter, the
command received a call from (his) mother-in-law who
indicated that he was in some way a menace to his wife.
As a result, a Military Protective Order (MPO) was
issued by the Commanding Officer that prohibited (him)
from contacting his wife for 10 days.

He reported to the Naval

He violated the

2

MPO, and in the process found his wife in a
compromising situation with another man, whom he
Shortly
proceeded to beat up and threatened to kill.
afterwards, he turned himself in to the police and was
The victim dropped all
charged with several felonies.
charges but the state still convicted (him) of one
felony, which has since been reduced to a misdemeanor
In the aftermath of this event, (his) EAOS
assault.
He was allowed to separate under honorable
came up.
conditions, but with an RE-4 reenlistment code and an
adverse evaluation which I signed.

Since that time, it appears that (he) has turned

2.
He and his wife worked
his life around considerably.
through their problems and are still together, he is an
active member of a local church, he completed his
court-assigned sentence and his legal record is clear
(except for the misdemeanor from the original event).
I interviewed him extensively and was impressed with
the maturity gains he seems to have made in a short
He expresses remorse for his actions and
time.
understands the requirement to comply with legal
military orders such as the Military Protective Order
He displays enthusiasm for
the he violated in 1999.
returning to the Naval Special Warfare community, to
the point of being willing to work outside his SEAL NEC
to prove himself. I support this appeal, with the
2 years of fleet
following recommended stipulations:
time prior to being allowed back into the Naval Special
I have also discussed this with the
Warfare community.
Commanding Officer of the Naval Special Warfare Center
at the time of the incident,
support (his) appeal.

who is also willing to

.

h.

Attached to enclosure (2) is a memorandum, dated 24

September 2001, from the enlisted community manager for SEAL S
that states, in part, as follows:

. 

. 

. 

. I recommend that (Petitioner's) request for removal
If approved (he) must
. This

. 
of his RE-4 status be approved.
then seek to enlist as a Navy Veteran
will be contingent upon the needs of the HT community,
Once
which is currently manned at near 100% for  
on active duty he may submit a request for
reinstatement of his 5326 NEC (SEAL/Combat Swimmer)
. Based on the most recent recommendation in his
. 
BCNR package, he should expect to serve in a non-NEC

(NAVET) 

HTl.

. . . 

. 

. 

 

3

5326 billet for at least 2 years before requesting
reinstatement of NEC 5326. . . . .

The narrative reason for separation on Petitioner's DD

Form 214 of "Unsatisfactory Performance" may be assigned only if
an individual has a record of sustained unsatisfactory
performance as reflected'in performance evaluations and a
counseling entry and is processed for administrative separation.
In Petitioner's case, such processing would include the right to
However, both Petitioner and
an administrative discharge board.
the CO of SEAL, Team Three state that he was discharged at the
expiration of his enlistment.
individual so separated is
Service" with a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of
"JBK" 

"Completion of Required Active

The proper narrative reason for an

i.

.

MAJORITY  CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
majority, consisting of Mr. Harrison and Mr. Rothlein, conclude
that Petitioner's request warrants partial favorable action. In
this regard, the majority believes that the narrative reason for
separation now of record is clearly incorrect since Petitioner
was not administratively processed for separation but was
discharged upon the expiration of his enlistment.
the majority concludes that the narrative reason should now be
changed to "Completion of Required Active Service" with an SPD
code of JBK.

Accordingly,

the majority notes that the  

Concerning the reenlistment code,
4 reenlistment code was correctly assigned based on the
circumstances leading to his separation, and the final adverse
performance evaluation.
The majority is aware that an RE-4
reenlistment code is normally a bar to further service in the
Navy, but believes that Petitioner should submit a request to the
In this
Navy Recruiting Command (NRC) for a waiver of the code.
regard, the majority notes that a waiver package with sufficient
high level support might very well result in approval by NRC.
However, since the RE-4 code was correctly assigned, the majority
concludes that a change in that code is not warranted.

RE-

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:

a.

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show

that on 12 October 1999 he was honorably discharge by reason of
completion of required active service,   SPD JBK,  vice the
narrative reason for discharge and SPD now of record.

That Petitioner's request for a  

change,in the

reenlistment code be denied.

That a  copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in

b.

C .

Petitioner's naval record.

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

However, he disagrees with the

Mr. Geisler agrees with the majority that the narrative reason
for discharge should be changed to completion of required active
service with an SPD of JBK.
majority on the reenlistment code issue.
notes Petitioner's desire to serve, the current need for
individuals with his training,
from the Special Warfare community.
way to resolve this issue is to change the reenlistment code.
Therefore, he concludes that the RE-4 code should now be changed
to RE-1.
qualified and there is a need for his services.

This code will allow reenlistment if he is otherwise

and the support he has received

He concludes that the best

In this regard, he

The minority also 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 change in the reason
for discharge and reenlistment code.

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on

a.
12 October 1999 he was honorably discharge by reason of
completion of required active service, SPD JBK, with an RE-1
reenlistment code vice the narrative reason SPD and 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

The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your

5.
review and action.

MINORITY REPORT:
Reviewed and approved:

DEC 

5 - 

ZOOI

Assistant General Counsel

(Manpower And Reserve Affairs)