Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00085-02
Original file (00085-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE  N A V Y  

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   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

TRG 
Docket No: 85-02 
9 May 2002 

From: 
To : 

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

Sub j : 

Ref: 

(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 

Encl : 

(1) Case Summary 
(2) Subject's naval record 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference  (a), Petitioner, an 
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 assigned 
on 7 December 1989. 

2.  The Board, consisting of Mr. Cooper, Mr. Milner and Mr. 
Bishop, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice 
on 30 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 was 

not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to 
waive the statute of limitations and review the application on 
its merits. 

c.  Petitioner enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 4 November 
1986 at age 19 and reported for three years of active duty on 8 
December 1986.  The enlisted performance record  (page 9) shows 
that from 8 December 1986 through 12 July 1989 he served in a 
satisfactory manner with no marks below 3.4 and no disciplinary 
actions.  During this period, he was advanced to HN  (E-3).  The 
page 9 shows that in the evaluation for the period ending 7 
December 1989, he was assigned marginal marks of 3.0 in the 
categories of reliability and personal behavior.  The overall 
evaluation was 3.2 and he was not reconmended  for reerAistment. 

Petitioner was released from active duty on 7 December 1989 with 
his service characterized as honorable.  Subsequently, he was 
honorably discharged at the end of his military obligation. 

d.  Petitioner's record contains two DD Form 214's which are 

identical, except that one shows that he was assigned an RE-3R 
reenlistment code and the other one shows an RE-4 reenlistment 
code.  The record also contains an administrative remarks page 
(page 13) which states that he was being assigned an RE-3R 
reenlistment code, but this entry is lined out and marked void. 
The Record of Discharge from the U. S. Naval Reserve  (Inactive) 
issued upon his discharge from the Naval Reserve, indicates that 
he was recommended for reenlistment.  There is a handwritten 
discharge entry on the page 9, dated 3 November 1994, made by the 
Naval Reserve Personnel Center which states that he was 
recommended for reenlistment. 

e.  An RE-3R reenlistment code is assigned to individuals 

who do not meet professional growth criteria by being advanced to 
petty officer third class during an extended period of active 
duty.  The code means that the individual is recommended for a 
probationary reenlistment during which he must advance to petty 
officer third class or pass an advancement examination for that 
rank.  An RE-4 reenlistment code means that an individual is not 
recommended for reenlistment. 

f.  Petitioner states in his application that he desires to 

serve, but cannot do so with the RE-4 reenlistment code.  He 
points outs that he was not the subject of any disciplinary 
actions and has an honorable discharge.  In support of his case, 
he has submitted references that show he has been a good employee 
for several years. 

CONCLUSION: 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the 
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable 
action.  The Board notes the conflicting entries in the record 
concerning an RE-3R or RE-4 reenlistment code, and speculates 
that Petitioner was initially to be assigned an RE-3R but it was 
changed at the last minute to an RE-4.  Although the last 
performance evaluation is marginal, it is not adverse and would 
not mandate the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.  Given 
the circumstances, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is 
now served by the RE-4 reenlistment code and the conflicting 
entries should now be resolved in his favor.  Therefore, the 
reenlistment code should now be changed to RE-3R. 

RECOMMENDATION : 

a.  That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that 
on 7 December 1989 he was assigned an RE-3R reenlistment code 
vice the RE-4  reenlistment code now of record. 

b.  That this Report of Proceedings be filed in 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 

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 | 04163-01

    Original file (04163-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, given the circumstances, especially his fine performance of duty, the Board concludes that an RE-1 reenlistment code should be assigned in this case as an exception to policy. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 24 July 2000 he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's naval record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07384-01

    Original file (07384-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Punishment imposed was forfeitures of $100 and 10 days e. Petitioner then continued to serve without further However, on 19 November incident, receiving two performance evaluations, that assigned a satisfactory overall rating of 3.4. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code, 3R. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05048-01

    Original file (05048-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board finds it a strange that an individual is RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code, assigned on 9 October 1991, to RE-3R. That Petitioner's record be further corrected by "not recommended for reenlistment" from the removing the entry enlisted performance record (page 9). 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02895-06

    Original file (02895-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 203705100 TRGDocket No: 2895-061 November 2006From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OFRef: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual completes an extended period of active duty and is serving in pay grade E-2. Since he was recommended for advancement and retention in his last...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08198-04

    Original file (08198-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Mr. Leeman, Mr. Pfeiffer and Ms. McCormick, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 August 2005 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Petitioner subsequently enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve, On 14 September 2001 he reported for active duty and served for one year. Therefore, Petitioner’s record should be corrected to show that on 11...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02529-02

    Original file (02529-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel -of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. you were not advanced to HN until 16 April 1989, which did not allow you much time to be advanced to HM3 prior to your release An RE-3R reenlistment code is not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08462-08

    Original file (08462-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner applied to this Board requesting his naval record be corrected by changing the reentry code he was assigned on 26 November 1993. b. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 22 November 1989. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 26 November 1993, he was assigned a reentry code of RE-1.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03581-02

    Original file (03581-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    growth criteria, officer third class, be serving in examination for advancement to recommended for advancement, officer in the current enlistment and be currently recommended for advancement to CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable It appears to the Board that Petitioner was issued an action. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01172-99

    Original file (01172-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) , Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future reviewers will understand why he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code, contrary to the recommendation in the last performance evaluation. That Petitioner's naval record...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08640-00

    Original file (08640-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. l:he evidence of record the ':he RE-4 reenlistment code However, since there is RECOMMENDATION: a. 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.