DEPARTMENT  OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  CORRECTION  O F  NAVAL  RECORDS 

2  NAVY  ANNEX 

WASHINGTON  DC  2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

TRG 
Docket N 
1 May 2C 

From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Rec~ras 
To : 

Secretary of the Navy 

Subj :  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF op 

--mmm 

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 in the Naval Reserve, filed an application with 
this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show a 
better characterization of service, separation code and 
reenlistment code. 

2.  The Board, consisting of Mr. Leeman, Mr. PfeifEer, and Ms. 
McCormick, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and 
injustice on 15 April 2003 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  Einds 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.  Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 29 July 1997 at age 

24.  At that time, he elected to participate in the Montgomery G. 
I. Bill  (MGIB) .  One of the requirements to receive (MGIB 
benefits is a fully honorable characterization of service. 

d.  During 1998, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) 
for a unspecified period of unauthorized absence.  In addition, 
he was counseled concerning that period of absence and his 
diagnosis of alcohol dependence.  He then served without incident 
until 18 September 2000.  On that date, he received his second 
(NJP) for an unspecified period of unauthorized absence and 
disobedience.  In a related action, his plane captain designation 
was revoked.  On 24 April 2001 he received his third NJP for 

disobedience. 

d.  On 9 June 2001 Petitioner acknowledgea m a t  his service 
would be characterized as being under honorable conditions "due 
to a continuous pattern of misconduct and behavior unbecoming a 
service member."  His performance evaluation for the period 11 
February to 28 July 2001 is adverse with "below standardn marks 
of 1.0 in three categories and "progressing marks" of 2.0 in two 
categories and a meets standards mark of 3.0 in one category. 
The individual trait average (ITA) is 1.67.  In addition he was 
not recommended for promotion and retention in the Navy.  He was 
released from active duty on 28 July 2001 with his service 
characterized as being under honorable conditions.  The Narrative 
reason for separation was "Non-Retention on active duty1' and the 
separation program designator was "LGH". He was not recommended 
for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 
There are no periods of lost time entered on his DD Form 214, 
which indicates that his periods of unauthorized absence were 
each less than one day. 

e.  The only performance evaluation available to the Board 
is the last evaluation discussed in the preceding subparagraph. 
~egulations state that when in individual is released from active 
duty, he must receive the type of discharge warranted by the 
service record based on marks assigned during periodic 
evaluations.  At the time of Petitioner's separation an average 
of 2.0 in all the ITA marks assigned during an enlistment was 
required for an honorable characterization of service. 

f.  The description in the regulation that corresponds to a 

narrative reason for separation of "non-retention on active duty" 
with an SPD code of LGH is "involuntary release or transfer to 
another service componentn. An RE-4 reenlistment code means that 
an individual is not eligible or recommended for rr2enlistment. 

CONCLUSION: 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence o t  record the 
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants partial 
favorable action.  The Board notes his period of good service 
from 14 April 1998 to 17 September 2000, the apparently very 
short periods of unauthorized absence and the fact that he 
completed his four year active duty obligation.  Further, it 
appears that the short periods of absence could be explained by 
alcohol abuse.  Since he completed his enlistment, his service 
must be based on the ITA computed from all the eval.uations during 
his enlistment.  Given his period of good service, the Board 
believes that if all the evaluations were available his ITA might 
very well exceed the 2.0 requirement.  In addition, the Board is 
aware that unless he has an honorable characterization of service 

he is not entitled to his MGIB benefits.  Therefore, the Board 
concludes that any doubt as to the proper characterization of 
service should be resolved in his favor.  Accordingly, the 
characterization of service assigned on his release from active 
duty on 28  July 2 0 0 1   should be changed to honorable 

Concerning the reason for separation and SPD code, the Board 
notes that the reason "non-retention on active duty" and SPD of 
LGH are assigned to many other servicemembers, especially when 
reenlistment is denied and an individual is released from active 
duty, and they are not erroneous.  Therefore, the Board concludes 
that changes in the reason for discharge and SPD code are not 
warranted. 

Concerning the reenlistment code, the Board concludes that the 
overall record, and especially the final performance evaluation, 
was sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment 
code and a change in that code is not warranted. 

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 his characterization of 
service was changed. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

a.  That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 
28 July 2 0 0 1  he was released from active duty with his service 
characterized as honorable vice the under honorable conditions 
characterization of service now of record. 

b.  That the remainder of Petitioner's requests be denied. 

c.  That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's 
naval record. 

4.  It is c e r t l f i . e d  that a quorum  w a s   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. 

5.  Pursuant to the delegation of authority set ouc 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 

Recorder 

ALAN E. GOLDSMITH 
Acting Recorder 

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN  @& 

mnicnced  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. 

'I 

Executive Dir