D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E NAVY
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 20370-5100
WMP
Docket No. 08458-01
5 April 2002
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 00 - Ref:
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To :
Secretary of the Navy
(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 wlattachments
(2) Case Summary
(3) Subject's naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board
requesting, in effect, that his reenlistment code be changed.
2. The Board, consisting of Mses. Gilbert and LeBlanc, and Mr.
Neuschafer, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 3 April 2002 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. Although it appears that Petitioner's application to the
Board was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of
justice to waiver the statute of limitations and review the
application on its merits.
c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 27 December 1983
for four years at age 18. The record further reflects that he
reenlisted for four and five years on 15 May 1989 and 16 November
1992 respectively.
d. The record further shows that Petitioner failed to
successfully complete the annual physical readiness tests (PRT)
conducted on 22 November 1994 and 24 April 1995. Additionally,
the record shows that Petitioner received a NAVPERS 10701613
(page 13) administrative remarks warning concerning his failure
to meet the Navy's physical fitness standards.
e. An evaluation report for the period 16 March 1996 to 15
August 1996 showed Petitioner was assigned a mark of 1.0 in
military bearinglcharacter. The reporting senior stated that
Petitioner failed to meet physical readiness standards and that
he was assigned to a weight management program, but had shown no
improvement in body fat standards. However, all other marks were
satisfactory or better.
f. Petitioner received an adverse evaluation report'for 18
September 1996 to 15 March 1997 and was assigned a mark of 1.0 in
military bearinglcharacter. The report stated that this mark was
due to his not meeting bodyfat standards. Once again, however,
the other marks were average or above average. Additionally, on
26 February 1997, Petitioner failed his third PRT due to failure
to meet bodyfat standards.
g. Petitioner was then advised that administrative
separation action was being initiated by reasons of weight
control failure as evidence by his failure of three PRT1s within
a four year period. Petitioner was advised of and waived all
procedural rights with the exception of obtaining copies of
documents forwarded that support the proposed separation action.
h. Petitioner received an adverse evaluation report for the
period of 16 March 1997 to 15 August 1997 and was assigned a mark
of 1.0 in military bearinglcharacter. The report stated that
this mark was due to member not meeting bodyfat standards for
third consecutive time. All other marks were at least
satisfactory.
i. On 15 August 1997 Petitioner was honorably discharged by
reason of weight control failure and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
j. Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-3T or RE-4
reenlistment code to individuals separated by reason of weight
control failure. An RE-3T reenlistment code means an individual
is ineligible to reenlist without a waiver of the disqualifying
factor by Commander, Navy Recruiting Command. An RE-4
reenlistment code means an individual is ineligible for
reenlistment and waivers will not be considered.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action. The Board concluded that Petitioner was correctly
processed for administrative separation by reason of weight
control failure. However, the Board believes that since
Petitioner's performance marks were average to above average in
all evaluation categories except for military bearing/character,
and these adverse marks were based solely on his weight control
problem, assignment of the most restrictive reenlistment code is
unjust. Accordingly, the record should be corrected to show that
he received an RE-3T vice an RE-4 reenlistment code.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record by changing the RE-4
reenlistment code, assigned on 15 August 1997, to RE-3T
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, together with
a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
4. 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
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 the Navy.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02338-03
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To : Secretary of the Navy Docket No: 2338-03 12 September 2003 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F NAVAL R E C O R D S 2 N A V Y A N N E X W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0 T ~ G Subj : REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF - Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member in the Naval Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07625-01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. At that time he was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future reviewers will...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07428-01
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 the RE-4 reenlistment code issued on 30 May 1997 be changed to RE-1. As indicated, there is no basis in the Given the circumstances, the Board concludes that The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03386-02
obtain copies of documents supporting g* On 12 August 1997, the commanding officer forwarded the administrative separation action to the discharge authority recommending separation due to weight control failure, with characterization of service as warranted by her service record. Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-3T or RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals separated by reason of weight control failure. That Petitioner's naval record by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04149-01
1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) 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 to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 15 December 1998. Schnittman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 24 October 2001 and, pursuant to its...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03282-01
d. The Board notes that the SPD code of GFT is in error because that code is only assigned when an individual is being discharged for failure of physical standards based on an approved recommendation of an administrative discharge board Petitioner was not eligible for an ADB and such a board was not convened. This code will 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06312-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve applied to this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better characterization of service than the separation under honorable conditions and that her reenlistment code be changed. The majority notes that there are no performance evaluations in the record after 31 January 1995. In addition, the Board notes that she was not discharged on 9 January 1997 as is usually...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00380-01
RE-3T reenlistment code means that An CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable In this regard, the Board notes that Petitioner had no action. disciplinary actions in more than nine years of active service, his performance was consistently rated as meeting standards, and he was not recommended for retention only because he failed to meet weight control assignment of the most unduly harsh and he...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 04514-97
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Bureau of Naval Personnel dated 19 September and 3 November 1997 and 20 May 1998 with reference (b), copies of which are attached. We cannot determine if the promotion recommendation is in accordance PRT regulations in effect at the time since or if the member could have been recommendation for promotion as it appears the member may have been out of two fitness reports. DSN MSC, USNR, f contact is LCD Pers-601,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07731-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 TJR Docket No: 7731-01 8 November 2001 From: To: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF' ,l. Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pfeiffer reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 6 November 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of...