DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
ANNEX
NAVY
2
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
Y
S
TRG
Docket No: 6122-01
7 February 2002
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Encl:
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
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
1.
former enlisted member of the Navy filed an application with this
Board requesting a change in the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned
on 30 October 1995.
The Board, consisting of Mr. Neuschafer, Mr.
2.
Ms. Humberd, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 29 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations,
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.
McPartlin and
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.
Although it appears that Petitioner's application was
not filed in a timely manner,
waive the statute of limitations and review the application on
its merits.
it is in the interest of justice to
Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy for four years on 31
At that time, he had completed about three and a
The record shows that he served
Octob:; 1991.
half years of active service.
without incident until 4 February 1993 when he received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unspecified violation of
Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
d.
The enlisted performance record (page 9) shows that in
the four evaluations after the NJP Petitioner received no marks
below 3.0 in any category and the lowest overall evaluation was
3.2
In the evaluation for the period ending 30 June 1995 he was
.
assigned marks of 3.8 in rate knowledge, 3.2 in reliability, 3.6
in military bearing, and 3.8 in personal behavior.
The overall
evaluation was 3.6.
In the next evaluation, for the period
ending 30 October 1995, he was assigned marks of 3.8 in rate
knowledge, 3.0 in reliability, 3.6 in military bearing, and 3.4
in personal behavior.
The overall evaluation was 3.2.
e.
Petitioner was honorably discharged on 30 October 1995
at the expiration of his enlistment.
reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
He was not recommended for
f.
Petitioner has submitted evidence showing that his
request for a six-month early discharge was approved.
that he then changed his mind and accepted orders to Diego
He then changed his mind again, refused the orders, and
Garcia.
elected to be discharged at the expiration of his enlistment. He
contends that this action made his command very unhappy and was
the sole reason for the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.
He blames the RE-4 reenlistment code for his inability to obtain
good jobs and to enter the Naval Reserve.
He states
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
The Board notes that the actual performance evaluations
which would explain the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code
are unavailable and only the marks are set forth on the page 9.
However, the evaluation marks entered on the page 9 are not
adverse and do not support the assignment of that code.
lowest mark assigned was a 3.0 in reliability, which may have
been related to his refusal of orders.
record and the absence of any adverse marks in the performance
evaluation, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is now
served by the RE-4 reenlistment code and it should now be changed
to an RE-1 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 understand the reason for the change in the
reenlistment code.
Given his overall good
The
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on
a.
30 October 1995 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
b.
naval record.
2
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.
Acting Recorder
GOLDSMITq
delegation of authority set out in Section
Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Pursuant to the
5.
6(e) of the revised
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05950-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08227-00
1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval r'tcord From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of (1) with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show a better reenlistment assigned on 13 January 1995. c'ode then the RE-4 reenlistment code th'a United States Navy filed enclosure The Board, consisting of Mr. 2. An a'ferage was 3.7, but it does not The page 9 indicates g- Petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08102-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 26 May 1989. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that she was not discharged on 20 May 1989 but continued to serve on active duty until 22 September 1989 when she was released from active duty with her...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00085-02
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. 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. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05911-02
At that time he was recommended for The reporting senior stated that . He also notes that his last enlisted performance evaluation recommended him for advancement 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07743-98
In the performance evaluation for You were Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to a diagnosed personality disorder. evaluations and the psychologist's opinion that you could be at risk to harm yourself or others were sufficient to support the decision not to recommend you for reenlistment and to assign you an RE-4 reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04243-01
1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) 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 enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show that he was assigned a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 3 November 1995. honorably discharged on 3 November 1995. not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08083-00
1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the United States 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 17 July 1992. Beckett, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 2 October 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02987-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. marks assigned for the period 1 February 1992 to 25 July 1992 are not entered on the page 9. In addition, the page 9 clearly shows that you were not eligible for reenlistment on 25 July 1992. that your performance either...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06726-01
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 his record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 code assigned on 28 December 1995. Pfeiffer, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 6 November 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action...