DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X

2  NAVY ANNE

S

WASHINGTON DC i-20370-510

0

TJR
Docket No: 5911-02
15 August 2002

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj:

Ref:

(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

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

Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a

1.
former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board
requesting that the RE-4 reenlistment code be changed.

The Board, consisting of Messrs. Carlsen, Frankfurt, and

2.
Swarens, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 13 August 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
Documentary material considered by
available evidence of record.
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

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.

Although 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 the merits.

C .

Petitioner first enlisted in the Navy on 14 November 1983.

On 26 January 1988 he reenlisted for six years as a second class
signalman.
Further, his performance was satisfactory during
reenlistment.
the first three years of this period.

He received no disciplinary actions during his

d.

Petitioner's record contains an adverse performance

evaluation, for the period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992, in
which he received an overall rate of 2.6 and was not recommended
The reporting senior stated, in
for advancement or retention.
part, as follows:

His in rate knowledge

(Member) has shown little progress during this reporting
He has put forth a sincere effort, but lacks the
period.
aptitude for success as a Signalman.
and abilities are below those required for a Second Class
Signalman and his performance is often below that expected
of a Second Class Petty Officer and sailor in the Navy.
in rate proficiency: Has failed to show noticeable
Low in
improvement despite numerous training attempts.
initiative: Rarely practiced rating skills and failed to
participate in several training opportunities. Unpredictable
behavior: On several occasions directed explosive outbursts
at his seniors.
well with others led to his removal from the work-center and
the signal bridge.
others.
recommended for advancement or retention.

Until he displays a dramatic improvement he is not

His poor behavior and inability to work

Works well alone, but not well with

Low

e.

On 3 August 1992 the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP)

issued Petitioner a letter of substandard service that placed him
on the petty officer quality control program as of March 1992
because his performance was below acceptable standards.
The
letter stated that improved performance was mandatory and that
until such time that he had demonstrated significant improvement,
In this regard,
he was not eligible for retention in the Navy.
the letter stated, in part; as follows:

Your performance must improve to a level in keeping with the
traditionally high standards of the Navy.
improve will result in your ineligibility for retention.
Should you demonstrate 24-months of significantly improved
performance you may request removal of this restriction.
Removal is not automatic after 24 months.
requested.
separated via administrative or judicial action prior to
displaying 24 months of improved performance, you will be
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

Should you elect separation at your EAOS or are

Failure to

It must be

You may request an extension of enlistment to complete the
24 months of Quality Control.
Your request must be
forwarded via your commanding officer and will not be
approved unless your performance record indicates
significant potential for retention.

f.

Petitioner's record contains a performance evaluation

for the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 in which he received
an overall rate of 3.6.
Petitioner had "turned himself around" and had shown increased
initiative and reliability.
advancement and retention.

At that time he was recommended for

The reporting senior stated that

.

g-

On 5 February 1993 Petitioner submitted a letter of

rebuttal to the letter of substandard service stating, in part,
that there was no documentation in his record which indicated
adverse performance in regards to his rating knowledge and job
performance.

h.

Prior to Petitioner's discharge he received a

performance evaluation from the period 1 April 1993 to 16
December 1993 in which he received an overall rate of 3.8, and
was recommended for retention.
also signed an administrative remarks entry which noted that he
was not recommended for reenlistment and that he would be
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code as a result of being assigned
to petty officer quality control.

However, at that time Petitioner

i.

On 16 December 1993, Petitioner was so discharged by

reason of reduction in force and was assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.

j.

In Petitioner's application he contends that he does not
know why he was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code because he was
honorably discharged by reason of reduction in force.
He also
notes that his last enlisted performance evaluation recommended
him for advancement and retention.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.

Additionally, although the Board is aware

The Board initially notes that Petitioner served without
disciplinary incident.
of his substandard performance during the period from 1 April
1991 to 31 March 1992, his 3.6 and 3.8 overall evaluations for
the following two performance ratings periods, from 1 April 1992
to 16 December 1993, clearly reflect the sort of significant
improvement in his performance contemplated by the petty officer
quality control program.
though he completed only about 21 of the 24 months of improved
performance called for by the program.
the later evaluations,
and retention.

The Board reaches this conclusion even

Petitioner was recommended for advancement

Furthermore, in both of

3

The Board further notes the letter of substandard service and its
requirements for avoiding the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment
code upon separation, specifically,
that the individual request
an extension to complete 24 months of improved performance.
Although Petitioner made no such request, the Board concludes
that had Petitioner not been separated by reason of reduction in
force, his performance would have continued to improve and he
would have met the requirements of the letter of substandard
service.
form of an RE-1 reenlistment code is appropriate.

Accordingly, the Board concludes that relief in the

In view of the foregoing,
injustice warranting the following corrective action.

the Board finds the existence of an

RECOMMENDATION:

a.

That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
Petitioner was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code on 16 December
1993, vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually assigned on that
same day.

b.

That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in

Petitioner's naval record.

It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's

4.
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 5e
of the Procedures for the Board for Correction of Naval Records
(32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section  
723.6[el),  and having
ensured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced
that the foregoing corrective action,
taken under the provisions
of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the
Secretary of the Navy.

P-W. 

DEA.t+$FEIFFER

Executive Director

4