DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
TRG
Docket No:
7 February 2002
7428-01
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 the RE-4 reenlistment code issued on 30 May
1997 be changed to RE-1.
The Board, consisting of Mr. Brezna, Mr. Pfeiffer and Ms.
2.
Hare, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
5 February 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that
the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record.
the Board consisted of the.enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
Documentary material considered by
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
C .
Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 7 April 1995 for
At that time, he had completed about five years of
Entries in the record,
four years.
active service on a prior enlistment.
dated 26 September 1996 and 27 March 1997, reflect his second and
third failures of the physical readiness test
He failed
because his body fat percentage was 25% and 23% respectively.
Subsequently, he failed the run portion in the next PRT.
this was his fourth failure,
administrative discharge.
he was processed for an
(PRT).
Since
d.
On 6 May 1997 Petitioner was notified of separation
Subsequently, the commanding officer directed
In connection with this processing, he elected to
processing.
waive his right to have his case heard by an administrative
discharge board.
In the performance evaluation for the
an honorable discharge.
period 16 June 1996 to 30 May 1997,
he was assigned an adverse
mark of 1.0 in military bearing/character, marginal marks of 2.0
in two other categories, and satisfactory marks of 3.0 in four
categories.
He was not recommended for retention or promotion.
However, the evaluation comments state, in part, as follows:
Failed the run/walk section of the Navy PRT exam and
failed to meet weight standards for three consecutive
examinations.
Excellent performance as a locksmith.
A team player.
Provided around the clock lock repair and safe opening
services to ships and submarines in the Pearl Harbor
Worked to high standards and ensured that every
area.
locksmith task was done to the full satisfaction of the
customer.
Petitioner was honorably discharged on 30 May 1997 due to weight
control failure.
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
He was not recommended for reenlistment and was
e.
Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-3T or an
RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to
weight control failure.
CONCLUSION:
The Board notes the apparent contradiction in the last
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
evaluation between the marks assigned and the favorable comments.
This inconsistency leads the Board to believe that Petitioner was
not recommended for reenlistment solely because of his PRT
problems.
Petitioner was properly discharged due to weight control failure,
but that the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code was
inappropriate and should now be changed to the less restrictive
RE-3T reenlistment code.
This code will alert recruiters that
there is a problem which must be resolved before reenlistment can
be authorized.
regulations to support his request for an RE-1 reenlistment code.
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 all future
reviewers will understand the reason for the change in the
reenlistment code.
2
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
a.
on 30 May 1997 he was
the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.
assigned an RE-3T reenlistment code vice
That Petitioner's request for a change to an RE-1
b.
reenlistment code be denied.
That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's
C .
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.
//s-&I
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
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 Na
Executive
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 | CY2001 | 03282-01
d. The Board notes that the SPD code of GFT is in error because that code is only assigned when an individual is being discharged for failure of physical standards based on an approved recommendation of an administrative discharge board Petitioner was not eligible for an ADB and such a board was not convened. This code will 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04149-01
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 a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 15 December 1998. Schnittman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 24 October 2001 and, pursuant to its...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06312-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve applied to this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better characterization of service than the separation under honorable conditions and that her reenlistment code be changed. The majority notes that there are no performance evaluations in the record after 31 January 1995. In addition, the Board notes that she was not discharged on 9 January 1997 as is usually...
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 03386-02
obtain copies of documents supporting g* On 12 August 1997, the commanding officer forwarded the administrative separation action to the discharge authority recommending separation due to weight control failure, with characterization of service as warranted by her service record. Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-3T or RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals separated by reason of weight control failure. That Petitioner's naval record by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code,...