DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

CRS
Docket  
5 March 2001

#No: 8650-00

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj

Ref:

CORD 0

(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
(b) BUPERSINST 1900.8

Encl: (1) Case Summary

(2) Subject's naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
former enlisted member of the Navy,
Board requesting, in effect,
by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 25 September
2000.

that his naval record be corrected

filed enclosure (1) with this

McPartlin,  and Ms.
2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Beckett, Mr. 
Newman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 21 February 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 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.

c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 27 July 2000 at age 20.

On 28 July 2000 he submitted to an accession urinalysis that
tested positive for marijuana.

d. On 7 August 2000,

administrative separation action was
initiated by reason of erroneous enlistment due to pre-service
On 10 August 2000, Petitioner submitted a letter
drug abuse.
which he requested retention in the Navy.
September 2000, the recruit division commander also recommended

By letter of 7

in

retention, citing his
demonstration of  
Commitment.W

lloutstanding job on his duties," and his

'@the Navy core values of Honor, Courage, and

e. On 8 September 2000, CAPT G, the Commanding Officer,

Recruit Training Command, recommended as follows to the Navy
Personnel Command, that the positive urinalysis be waived and
that Petitioner be retained in the Navy:

(Petitioner) has expressed his strong desire to remain
in naval service . ..He joined the Delayed Entry Program
on 13 July 00 and shipped to boot camp only 15 days later,
on 28 July 00, far too short a period for his recruiter
to have infused any Navy Core Values.
one minor disciplinary lapse, (Petitioner) has been
successfully training during his trial of  
his Recruit Division Commander . ..supports (Petitioner's)
retention...

Moreover, despite

duty...Finally,

Despite the foregoing, on 13 September 2000 the Commander, Naval
Training Center (NTC) recommended that no waiver be granted.

f. The Commander, Navy Personnel Command apparently agreed
with the Commander, NTC, because on 22 September 2000, CAPT G
directed an entry level separation.
CAPT G noted that Petitioner failed to disclose his drug use at
the Moment of Truth.
Petitioner was separated with an entry level separation by reason
of "erroneous entry  
reenlistment code of RE-4.
Petitioner received a letter of appreciation from CAPT G
outstanding achievement in the performance of his duties while
serving as a Recruit..."

abuse," and was assigned a
Just prior to his separation,

Accordingly, on 25 September 2000,

In his letter of that date,

- drug 

Itfor

 

go In an attachment to his application, Petitioner admits that

He states that he enjoyed recruit training and

he used marijuana just prior to recruit training, a decision he
now regrets.
cites the letter of appreciation from CAPT G for his attitude and
hard work.
when he was rolled back and was disappointed when he was
subsequently separated.
believes he could be an asset in demonstrating by example the
core values of honor, courage, and commitment.

He believed that he had been given a second chance
The Navy is still his first love 'and

h. Reference (b) indicates that for an individual in

Petitioner's situation, an RE-4 reenlistment code must be
assigned because the reason for separation is erroneous
enlistment due to drug abuse.
individual is not recommended for reenlistment.
reenlistment code can be assigned if there was some other form of
erroneous enlistment.
individual is recommended for reenlistment except for the

This reenlistment code means that the

That code means that the

An RE-3E

2

disqualifying factor of the improper enlistment.
MAJORITY CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record a
majority of   Ms. Newman and Mr.  
Petitioner's request warrants favorable action.
notes Petitioner's strong desire for retention when processed for
separation and the unusual support he received from his division
commander and CAPT G, and his current plea for another
opportunity to serve.
Based on the foregoing, the majority
believes Petitioner deserves a second chance, despite current
regulations that require a reenlistment code of RE-4.
regard, the majority is aware that a code of RE-3E will alert
recruiting personnel that there was a problem with Petitioner's
prior enlistment which must be resolved,
that he will be permitted to reenlist.

McPartlin,  concludes that

and does not guarantee

The majority

In this

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

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on
25 September 2000, Petitioner was assigned an RE-3E reenlistment
code instead of the RE-4 reenlistment code actually assigned on
that date.

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
together with a copy of

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

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

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

The minority member of the Board, Mr.
majority on changing the RE-4 reenlistment code and concludes
that no corrective action should be taken.
He believes that
giving relief to individuals such as Petitioner who used
marijuana prior to recruit training disregards the present policy
and that it is not the Board's responsibility to set policy.

Beckett, disagrees with the

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:

That no relief be granted.

3

4. It is certified that a quorum was present   at the Board's
and that the foregoing is a true and
review and deliberations,
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
zJ

Iji

&

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

E. GOLDSMITH

Acting Recorder

5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review
and action.

MAJORITY REPORT APPROVED:

Ashtant General  Counsel

(Manpower And Reserve Affairs)

4