Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09474-05
Original file (09474-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
         WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                  SJN
 Docket No: 09474-05
9 May 2006

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

Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL OF RECORD


Ref:     (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

End:     (1) DD Form 149 with attachments
(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 a change in his reenlistment code.

2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 May 2006 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 Petitioners 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 enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statue of limitations and review the application on its merits.
c. Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 31 March 1989 after four years of honorable service. During his service, Petitioner was advanced to petty officer third class (BM3; E-4), and was awarded the Good Conduct Medal and Combat Action Medal. However, on 11 April 1990 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from physical fitness training. He received a suspended reduction in paygrade and 45 days extra duty.

d. On 12 April 1991, Petitioner was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of making a false official statement, damaging a government vehicle, wrongful appropriation of a command vehicle, and subscribing under oath a false statement in a Naval incident complaint report. He was sentenced to confinement, reduction in paygrade and a fine. If the fine was not paid, he was to be further confined for an additional 30 days. The convening authority later directed execution of the reduction to paygrade E-4, but suspended all other punishment for a period for 12 months.
e. On 9 August 1991, Petitioner was issued an administrative counseling and warning entry outlining his deficiencies, recommending corrective actions, and warning that further deficiencies could result in administrative separation.
f. On 7 January 1992, Petitioner was placed on a petty officer quality control program and restricted from reenlisting or extending his enlistment without permission from the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP).
g. Ten months later, on 9 November 1992, Petitioner requested that the reenlistment restriction be removed so that he could join the reserves. His commanding officer (CO) forwarded his request recommending approval on 27 November 1992, stating that Petitioner had potential to make a quality contribution in the reserve force. CNP denied his request on 9 December 1992 and directed that Petitioner be assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code upon separation.
h. On 30 March 1993 Petitioner received an honorable discharge at the completion of his required service and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. Additionally, his CO, stated in the separation evaluation that he had been counseled on many occasions in regard to improving his work habits, military bearing, and attitude. The CO did not recommend him for reenlistment.
i. With his application, Petitioner states that he joined the Army National Guard, attended a four-week boot camp and has learned how to be a soldier. He further states that he was offered and accepted a fulltime active duty special work position. He now requests a change in his reenlistment code so he can apply to the active guard and reserve. A letter from a staff sergeant serving as a recruiter supports Petitioner’s request stating that he “is an asset to the National Guard and he feels he should obtain his reenlistment reclassification.”
CONCLUSION:

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

In this regard, the Board notes Petitioner’s overall record of military service, including almost two years of service without any disciplinary infractions after the SPCM, his current status with the Army National Guard, and the reference letter from the recruiter. The Board therefore concludes that no useful purpose is served by the most restrictive reenlistment code of RE-4, and an RE-l code would more accurately reflect his ability to perform useful military service.

 RECOMMENDAT ION:

 a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 30 March 1993 Petitioner was issued a RE-i reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually issued on that date.
b. That a copy of 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        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 Regulation, 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.



         W. DEAN PFEIFFER
         Executive Director




Review and approved:
Robert T. Cali  
4-28-06



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03354-02

    Original file (03354-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's naval record The Board, consisting of Messrs. Zsalman, Pfeiffer, and Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed. Punishment imposed was forfeitures paygrade E-2, and The restriction and extra f& two months, reduction to Petitioner served without .1990 for d. On 8 October 1994, Petitioner received NJP...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05911-02

    Original file (05911-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2002 | 03581-02

    Original file (03581-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    growth criteria, officer third class, be serving in examination for advancement to recommended for advancement, officer in the current enlistment and be currently recommended for advancement to CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable It appears to the Board that Petitioner was issued an action. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07974-97

    Original file (07974-97.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 1993. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. After an evaluation, the diagnosis was personality." The Board also noted the comments by the CO in which he stated that you attempted suicide in 1987 and again in 1990, and on 16 April 1992 you stated that you were going to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11879-08

    Original file (11879-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SUN Docket No: 11879-08 28 October 20039 From: Chairman, .Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Sub}: REVIEW OF MAVAL RECORD OF (U0 Ref: (a) 10 U.§.C. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's naval record 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) wath...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11022-10

    Original file (11022-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SIN Docket No: 11022-10 28 October 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Tor Secretary of the Navy subs REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 1¢0 (9 Ref: (a) 10 U.8.€. 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 his RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reenlistment code. ae......

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00415-98

    Original file (00415-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. the Board carefully considered set aside your discharge, The Board also particularly noted counsel's contentions to the effect that no regulations provided for the discharge of an The and you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04958-02

    Original file (04958-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) 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, in effect, that his discharge be upgraded. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Exnicios, and Shy, 2. allegations of error and injustice on 20 reviewed Petitioner's November 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2010-223

    Original file (2010-223.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant received an honorable discharge from the Coast Guard on March 22, 1993, and his DD 214 states that his discharge was for the “convenience of the government.” His DD 214 also shows that he received an RE-4 reenlistment code and that he was discharged as a SAMST in pay grade E-2. However, regarding the merits of the case, PSC stated that in light of the applicant’s offenses under the UCMJ, his honorable discharge with a JND separation code1 and an RE-4 reenlistment code...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05204-02

    Original file (05204-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted and applicable statutes, regulations and Your allegations of error and After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the...