Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07449-05
Original file (07449-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC
20370-5100CRS
Docket No: 7449-05
23 January 2007


From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy

Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref:     (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

End:     (1) DD Form 149 w/attac hm ents
(2) Case Summary
(3)
Subjects naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected
by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 28 February
1994.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 18 January 2007 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.       Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner. Although it appears that 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 its merits.

c.       Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 5 January 1994.

d.       On 18 February 1994 Petitioner was diagnosed with chronic ear infections.

e.       On 28 February 1994 he received an entry level separation by reason of “failed medical/physical procurement standards.” At that time, Petitioner was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, which means that he is not recommended for reenlistment.

f.       Applicable directives state that only an RE-4 reenlistment code can be assigned for “failed medical/physical procurement standards.” However, an RE-3E reenlistment code may be assigned when an individual is enlisted in error.



CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. The Board believes that the reenlistment code RE-3E, while not specifically authorized when an individual is separated for “failed medical/physical procurement standards,” should now be assigned since his record does not warrant the most stigmatizing reenlistment code of RE-4. A code of RE-3E will alert recruiting personnel that there was a problem which must be resolved before reenlistment is authorized.

RECO M MENDAT ION:

a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 28 February 1994, Petitioner was assigned an RE-3E reenlistment code instead of the RE-4 reenlistment code actually assigned on that date.

b.       That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.

c.       That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner’s naval record be returned to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of 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        ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
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.



ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04752-07

    Original file (04752-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting a change in her RE-4 reenlistment code and reason for discharge (“Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards”)- 2. She was discharged with an entry level separation, assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code, and a JFW separation code on 9 March 2006.f. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.c.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08684-01

    Original file (08684-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    NAVY WASHINGTON DC 2 ANNEX DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 20370-5100 JRE Docket No: 8684-01 8 February 2002 From: To: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy Subj : REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. The Board, consisting of Ms. Nofziger and Messrs. Chapman and Kim, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 31 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08395-01

    Original file (08395-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WAsHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No: 6 February 2002 8395-01 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy FORME REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. committed any acts of misconduct during his enlistment, or performed his duties in an unsatisfactory manner, it would be in the interest of justice to assign him a reenlistment code RE-3E, which would permit him to apply for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12756-09

    Original file (12756-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner applied to this Board requesting his naval record be corrected by changing the reason for discharge and the reentry code he was assigned on 17 November 1994. oA Pee, and , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 3 February 2010 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. b. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 4 November...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08201-01

    Original file (08201-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary 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 an RE-3 reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. However, the doctor at recruit training recommended his separation because a waiver of his physical condition was required prior to enlistment. The Board further concludes that this Report...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07015-01

    Original file (07015-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    states that because he is free of diplopia, Petitioner should be The doctor considered cured. 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. Therefore, the Board concludes that the Given the This code will alert RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that a. on 8 October 1999 he was assigned an RE-3E...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00292-01

    Original file (00292-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board questing, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a reenlistment (RF) code of RE-1, vice the code of RE-4 he received on 19 July 2000 2. He was discharged on 19 July 2000, for failing to meet medical/physical procurement standards because of a hearing loss. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07160-01

    Original file (07160-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a more favorable reenlistment code than the RE-4 code he received on 22 March 1995. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Kastner and Rothlein and Ms. Schnittman reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07200-06

    Original file (07200-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    e. Regulations allow for the assignment of his RE-3E reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of erroneous enlistment. When an individual is discharged by reason of “Failed Medical Physical Procurement Standards” the only authorized code is an RE-4 reenlistment code.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. This code will alert recruiters that there is a problem which...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06914-01

    Original file (06914-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-3, rather than the RE-4 code he received on 17 April 2001, and that his discharge be upgraded from “general [sic] to honorable”. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. That...