Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06914-01
Original file (06914-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPART ’MENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

JRE
Docket No: 6914-01
14 November 

2001

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj 

:

FORMER
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref: (a)

10 

U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

(1)
(2)

DD Form 149
Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to
show that he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-3, rather than the RE-4 code he
received on 17 April 
2001, and that his discharge be upgraded from “general [sic] to
honorable”.

Zsalman reviewed Petitioner’s
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Goldsmith, Shy and 
allegations of error and injustice on 27 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.

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

.

Petitioner served in the Navy on from 6 February to 17 April 2001, when he was
discI&ged with an entry level separation for failing to meet procurement medical standards
because of a symptomatic hydrocele. He received a reenlistment code of RE-4, as required
by governing directives.

d. SECNAVINST 1900.8 provides, in effect, that Sailors discharged for failing to meet

procurement.medical/physical  standards will be assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. Those
discharged because of erroneous enlistment, however, may be assigned a code of RE-4 or

RE-3E, in the discretion of the commanding officer.

e. Petitioner contends that the condition which resulted in his discharge does not exists,

and he wants his record to be corrected so that he will be eligible for reenlistment.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes
that Petitioner was properly discharged because of his failure to meet minimum physical
standards for enlistment and assigned an reenlistment code of RE-4; however, as there is no
evidence that he had any performance problems or disciplinary infractions during his period
of service, the assignment of the stigmatizing reenlistment code of RE-4 is unjust.

The Board notes that Petitioner was in an entry level status when separated from the Navy;
accordingly, there is no basis for changing his entry level separation to a characterized
discharge.

In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the
following corrective action.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected to show that on 17 April 

2001, he was
discharged by reason of erroneous enlistment, and assigned a reenlistment code of RE-3E.

b. That so much of his application as exceeds the foregoing be denied.

C. That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner

’s naval record.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) 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.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

k*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.

Executive Director



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08201-01

    Original file (08201-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary 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 to show an RE-3 reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. However, the doctor at recruit training recommended his separation because a waiver of his physical condition was required prior to enlistment. The Board further concludes that this Report...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08325-01

    Original file (08325-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a more favorable reenlistment code than the RE-4 code he received on 20 April 2001. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Kastner and Rothlein and Ms. Schnittman reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08395-01

    Original file (08395-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WAsHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No: 6 February 2002 8395-01 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy FORME REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. committed any acts of misconduct during his enlistment, or performed his duties in an unsatisfactory manner, it would be in the interest of justice to assign him a reenlistment code RE-3E, which would permit him to apply for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07730-01

    Original file (07730-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show that she was assigned a reenlistment code more favorable than the code of RE-4 she was assigned on 30 July 1998. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hogue, Kastner and allegations of error and injustice on 1 November 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07121-08

    Original file (07121-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner applied to this Board requesting that his naval be corrected by changing the reason for discharge and the RE-4 reentry code assigned on 9 August 2001. The Board, consisting of Messrs. =—eGypr gay 2nd ne reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on January 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. A Sailor who is found...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04323-01

    Original file (04323-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No: 4323-01 20 July 2001 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: Ref: Encl: FORMER REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, show that he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-3, 18 December 1998. hereinafter referred to as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00292-01

    Original file (00292-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board questing, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a reenlistment (RF) code of RE-1, vice the code of RE-4 he received on 19 July 2000 2. He was discharged on 19 July 2000, for failing to meet medical/physical procurement standards because of a hearing loss. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07015-01

    Original file (07015-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    states that because he is free of diplopia, Petitioner should be The doctor considered cured. 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 reenlistment code. Therefore, the Board concludes that the Given the This code will alert RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that a. on 8 October 1999 he was assigned an RE-3E...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02126-01

    Original file (02126-01.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Naval Reserve, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 18 March 1998. Accordingly, the Board recommends that Petitioner’s reason for separation be changed to erroneous enlistment vice personality disorder. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that she received an entry level...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07160-01

    Original file (07160-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a more favorable reenlistment code than the RE-4 code he received on 22 March 1995. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Kastner and Rothlein and Ms. Schnittman reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined...