DEPARTMENT OF

 

THF NAVY

BOAR,,  FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

:

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC

 

20370-5100

TRG
Docket No: 5838-00
26 December 2001

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

RECORD OF

I

(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 Naval Reserve filed an application
with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show a
better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code now of
record.

The Board, consisting of Mr. Pfeiffer, Mr. Whitener and Mr.

2.
McPartlin, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 18 December 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record.
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes,

regulations and policies.

Documentary material

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 enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 15 October
1993 at age 18 and reported for three years of active duty on 10
January 1994.
recruit training and, on 18 April 1994,
duty station.

The record shows that he successfully completed

he reported to his first

_

d.

On 9 May 1994 he was referred for a psychiatric

evaluation after he expressed suicidal ideation.
precipitating factors in the referral were his feeling that the
recruiter lied to him about the possibility of schools and his

The

desire for discharge.
an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and believed he was
an unacceptable medical and administrative burden with little
likelihood of making significant contributions to the Navy.
Accordingly, he recommended an administrative separation.

The psychologist diagnosed him as having

e.

On 23 May 1994 Petitioner was notified of separation

processing due to unsatisfactory performance as evidenced by his
failure to adapt to the naval environment.
elected to waive his procedural rights.
separation authority directed an entry level separation by reason
of entry level performance and conduct, and he was so separated
on 3 June 1994.
reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

At that time, he was not recommended for

On 26 May 1994 the

Subsequently, he

f.

Petitioner initial request for a change in his

reenlistment code was denied in 1999.
that he only wanted to be separated because he was harassed and
assaulted at his first duty station, and he submitted evidence
showing that he had made a good post service adjustment.
denial letter, the Board noted that there was no evidence that he
had been harassed or assaulted and he had made no mention of such
a scenario when he was evaluated by the psychologist.
concluded that he was properly separated from the Navy and the
RE-4 reenlistment code was properly assigned.

Be contended at that time

The Board

In the

Q*

Petitioner's case is being reconsidered based on the

excellent character references, and a

The psychiatrist concludes that he no

brief of counsel, which includes evidence that he was assaulted
while in the Navy,
psychiatric evaluation.
longer has an adjustment disorder and believes there are no
psychiatric findings that would prevent good performance and
conduct in a military environment.
Documentation has been
submitted which shows that Petitioner is employed by a government
contractor, is performing security guard duties for the U. S.
Government and has been granted a security clearance.
of counsel, character references and psychiatric evaluation are
attached to enclosure (1).

The brief

h.

As indicated, Petitioner has submitted excellent

A Marine Corps master dergeant states that

character references.
he has known Petitioner since December 1997 and believes that he
is task-oriented, extremely conscientious, and has repeatedly
demonstrated a capacity for handling positions of increased
responsibility.
The master sergeant concludes that he is aware
of the circumstances of Petitioner separation but believes, as a
former recruiter, that he could perform well in the military. In
another reference, an Army sergeant first class states that
Petitioner takes pride in his performance, is extremely well
qualified as a security guard,
and performs his duties in a

2

He notes that Petitioner has become a

superior manner.
supervisor in charge of six security guards at a highly secure
and prestigious facility,
and that this position required an
intense security background check that he easily obtained.
The
sergeant first class believes that Petitioner should have another
opportunity to serve in the military.
Finally a deputy sheriff
states that he has been Petitioner's supervisor for several years
in his off duty employment with a security firm.
The deputy
sheriff believes that Petitioner is reliable, trustworthy, has
demonstrated outstanding judgment and should be given another
change to succeed.

i.

The Board is aware that only an RE-4 reenlistment code

is authorized when an individual is separated with a narrative
reason of  
and.ConductVV.
allow for a narrative reason for separation of  
the Service" or "Secretarial Authority" when separation is
warranted but no othernarrative reason for separation fits the

"Entry Level Performance  

The regulations

"Best Interest of

circumstances of the case.

When an individual is separated for

this reason, the regulations allow for the assignment of the full
range of reenlistment codes.

CONCLUSION:

The Board believes that Petitioner was properly

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record.the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
separated from the Navy in 1994 and the record supports the
assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.
notes the current psychiatric evaluation and the excellent
character references which attest to his maturity and
professionalism.
that no useful purpose is now served by the RE-4 reenlistment
code and corrective action is warranted.
narrative reason for separation and reenlistment code should be
changed to Secretarial Authority and RE-1, vice the narrative
reason for separation and reenlistment code now of record.

Given the circumstances, the Board concludes

Therefore, the

However, the Board

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 change in the reason
for separation and reenlistment code.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by issuing a new

a.
DD Form 214 showing that on 3 June 1994 he was separated by
reason of Secretarial Authority with an RE-1 Reenlistment Code
vice the narrative reason for separation and reenlistment code
now of record.

3

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

Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section

5.
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.

4