DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0 TRG
Docket No: 1861-02
5 November 2002
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy
RECORD OF
(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 Navy 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
November 2000.
12
The Board, consisting of Mr. Exnicios, Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr.
2.
Harrison, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
pursuant to its regulations,
injustice on 29 October 2002 and,
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.
Petitioner's application was filed in
a timely manner.
C .
three years on 13
duty on prior
_
Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy for
November 1997 after about nine years of active
enlistments.
The performance evaluation for the period 16 March
199 to 15 March 2000 indicates that he passed the physical
Although he
fitness test and was within the weight standards.
was assigned a marginal mark of 2.0 in the category of military
bearing/character, he was recommended for promotion and retention
The next performance evaluation, for the period 16
in the Navy.
March 2000 to 12 November 2000,
physical fitness test but was not within weight standards, and he
Even
was assigned a mark of 2.0 in military bearing/character.
with that mark of 2.0 the individual trait average
excellent 4.43.
The evaluation comments state that Petitioner
indicates that he passed the
was an
did not meet body fat standards but he was recommended for early
Petitioner was voluntarily discharged
promotion and retention.
at the expiration of his enlistment on 12 November 2000.
time, he was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
At that
d.
Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from
65B), Navy
the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Division (Pers
Personnel Command, essentially stating that assignment of the 2.0
marks in military bearing/character were not mandated or
and assignment of those marks was
prohibited by regulations,
The opinion
within the discretion of the reporting senior.
defers to the favorable enlisted separation section (Pers 832)
for comments on the reenlistment code issue.
Pers 832 states
that since he was assigned two 2.0 marks in the same trait, an
RE-4 reenlistment code was properly assigned.
e.
The captain states that the regulations had changed and he
In connection with his rebuttal to the advisory opinion,
Petitioner has submitted a letter from a retired captain, who was
Chief of Staff, Submarine Group Nine, and the reporting senior
for the performance evaluation for the period ending 12 November
2000.
was unaware that the assignment of a 2.0 in military bearing was
discretionary.
performer and that the evaluation also recommended him for
retention in the Navy.
changed to a 3.0 for the sole purpose of allowing a change in the
reenlistment code.
served by taking this action."
He points outs that Petitioner was an outstanding
He recommends that the mark of 2.0 be
He believes that the
"Navy will be well
f.
Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-3T or an
RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is not recommended for
reenlistment because of obesity.
means that an individual is recommended for reenlistment except
for the disqualifying factor of the weight problem.
An RE-3T reenlistment code
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
The Board notes Petitioner's excellent record, the
comments of the reporting senior and the other circumstances of
the case and believes that a change in the reenlistment code is
However, the Board believes that a change in the
warranted.
performance evaluation solely for the purpose of allowing the
assignment of a better reenlistment code is unnecessary because
the Board has the authority to change the reenlistment code as an
exception to the policy.
record should be corrected as an exception to policy to show that
on 12 November 2000 Petitioner was assigned an RE-3T reenlistment
The RE-3T
code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.
Therefore, the Board concludes that the
2
code will alert recruiters that Petitioner must meet the weight
standards before reenlistment is authorized.
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 RE-4
reenlistment code.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by issuing a DD
a.
Form 215 to show that on 12 November 2000 he was issued an RE-3T
reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.
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.
and that the foregoing is a true and
review and deliberations,
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
has been approved by the Board on
authority of reference (a),
behalf of the,Secretary of the Navy.
3
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 | CY2002 | 06673-01
1552 (b) BUPERSINST 1900.8 (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 a change in the RE-4 reenlistment code issued to her on 14 January 1997. Since her performance of 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 | CY2001 | 08458-01
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. That Petitioner's naval record by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code, assigned on 15 August 1997, to RE-3T b.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06887-00
"completion of required active f. Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-3T reenlistment code to individuals ineligible to reenlist upon expiration of enlistment due to their failure to meet weight standards. disciplinary actions in nearly 10 years of service and was not recommended for retention only because he failed to meet weight control standards. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by assigned on 22 November chang- 1995, to ing the RE-4 reenlistment code, RE-3T.
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 | CY2000 | 06967-00
PERS-832C states that he “was, in fact, convicted of DUI under a Deferred Prosecution agreement and his command had every right to document that event in his service record.” They further state “The fact that he met the required obligations, applied for and received a court dismissal of the charge two years later does not negate the incident.” They conclude that documentation supporting that significant event should remain in the record; and that maintaining such documents is essential to...
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...
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 | CY2007 | 02330-07