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. 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 that
he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code vice the RE-4
reenlistment code now of record.
2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Chapman, Mr. Milner and Mr.
Grover, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 3 September 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, 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. Petitioner enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 23 July 1996
and reported for extended active duty on 26 June 1997. He then
served in an excellent manner for over three years. On 22 August
2000 he reported aboard the USS GEORGE PHILIP (FFG 12). The
performance evaluations covering the period from 22 August 2000
to 15 March 2002 are excellent with individual trait averages
(ITA's) of 4.14 and 3.86, respectively. The record shows that
during this period he was awarded two Navy Achievement Medals.
His last performance evaluation for the period ending 25 August
2002 is adverse. Petitioner was honorably released from active
duty on 25 August 2002 with an RE-4 reenlistment code.
d. In the performance evaluation for the period 16 March
tc 25 August 2002 he was assigned adverse marks of 1.0 in three
categories and the ITA was 1.96. The evaluation states that he
had failed the physical readiness test (PRT) on three occasions,
and was not within weight standards. The evaluation comments
also state that Petitioner required constant supervision,
produced below average work, failed to qualify as an enlisted
surface warfare specialist within the required time. The
evaluation was signed by the executive officer on 2 September
2002, after Petitioner was released from active duty.
e. Petitioner states in his application that he left the
ship in Hong Kong without the commanding officer and executive
officer signing his check out sheet because they were ashore.
Since he had already signed his evaluation showing an RE-1
reenlistment code and the DD Form 214, he left the ship without
waiting for them to return. He could not wait any longer or he
would have missed his flight to the United States. Subsequently,
he discovered that the commanding officer and executive officer
were angry and considered him to be an unauthorized absentee. He
immediately reported to the destroyer squadron for assistance and
was informed that since he had separation orders, he could not be
an unauthorized absentee. He then received the adverse
performance evaluation and DD Form 214 in the mail.
f. Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-3T or an
RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual does not meet the
weight standards and fails the PRT.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action. The Board considered his record of excellent service
from 26 June 1997 until 15 March 2002, which included two
excellent evaluations from different reporting seniors on board
the GEORGE PHILIP and two Navy Achievement Medals. Further, the
adverse performance evaluation was not dated until after he was
released from active duty and was not signed by Petitioner. This
lends credence to Petitioner's contention that the evaluation was
changed after he left the ship. Given his overall good record
and the other circumstances, the Board concludes that the
assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code was inappropriate.
However, given his PRT failures and failure to meet weight
standards, the Board concludes that an RE-1 reenlistment code is
not warranted and the reenlistment code should be changed to RE-
The Board further concludes that this
should be filed in Petitioner's naval
reviewers will understand the reasons
Report of Proceedings
record so that all future
for the change in the
reenlistment code.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on
25 August 2002 he was assigned an RE-3T reenlistment code vice
the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.
b. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's
naval record.
4. It is certified that a quorum was 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.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN ee ALAN E. GOLDSMIT
Recorder
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 Navy.
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 08179-01
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 assigned on 24 November 1998. 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...
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 01861-02
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. performance evaluation solely for the purpose of allowing the assignment of a better reenlistment code is unnecessary because the Board has the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02813-00
letter of 31 October 1997, that he could elect or waive his right to an administrative discharge board (ADB) and that he could By return endorsement, dated 1 November consult with counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner's record should be corrected to show that he was not discharged on 12 January 1998, but continued to serve Concerning the characterization of service, the Board notes Therefore, the Board concludes Petitioner's waiver of 2 on active duty until the earliest possible date he could...
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...