Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09851-05
Original file (09851-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 BOARD OF CORRECTION OF NAVAL PECOF~DS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                                             TRG
 Docket No: 9851-05
 10 May 2006
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy

Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF


Ref:     (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

End:     (1) Case Summary
(2) Subject’s naval eord
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Naval Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that the reenlistment code from a former enlistment be changed.

2. - he Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 25 April 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 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, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider the application on its merits.
c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 9 December 1997 at age 18. He performed poorly in recruit training as indicated by several entries in which he was counseled as to his deficiencies, and warned that further problems could result in administrative separation. In a recruit evaluation report, dated 9 February 1998, he was rated as being poor in six of eight categories and was recommended for separation from the Navy. He subsequently violated the warning entry and was processed f or an administrative separation. In connection with this processing, he elected to waive his procedural rights. After review, the separation authority directed an entry level separation by reason of entry level performance and conduct, and he was so separated on 17 February 1998. At that time, he was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
d. About four years later, Petitioner applied for enlistment in the Naval Reserve. On 27 February 2002, after a review of his excellent work and academic history, the Commander Naval Reserve Recruiting Command granted him a waiver to enlist in the Naval Reserve. Petitioner enlisted on 27 February 2002 at age 23. Based on his background, he was temporarily advanced to seaman (SN; E-3) . Since enlistment, Petitioner has served in an outstanding manner and has been advanced to petty officer third class (1T3; E-4). Subsequently, he was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal for professional achievement during the period from January to December 2004 in connection with being named Sailor of the Year. In his performance evaluation for the period 16 June 2004 to 15 June 2005, the Individual Trait Average is 4.43 and he is recommended for early promotion.
e. In his application to the Board, Petitioner requests a change in the RE-4 reenlistment code he was assigned on 17 February 1998 because it is preventing him from performing extended periods of active duty and enlisting in the Regular Navy. He states that he has been working full time in the information technology field since 2001 and is attempting to earn his Bachelor of Computer Science on a part time basis. Concerning his first period of service, he states, in part, as follows:
.In retrospect, I lacked the maturity to enlisted in the Navy in 1997. .... Prior to my enlistment, I had never left the State of Texas. I enlisted to escape from embarrassment to my family caused by one (of) my brothers who had been charged with a felony. I thoug~ getting away from the turmoil in my family was a good idea at the time, but the letters and telephone calls I received from home during basic training distracted me from my military duties and cause me to simply want to go back home. I still did well on my exams and completed most of my training, but I did not talk to anyone about my family situation. Had I had the judgment and maturity I have now, I would have benefited from counseling and advice that was available

Petitioner’s current commanding officer states, in part, as follows:

 My experience is that (Petitioner) is a motivated


2



conscientious sailor. In the last two years, (he) has done 67 days of Annual Training in direct operational support of the US Navy, far in excess of his 12 day per year requirement. ... He has been a huge asset to the Reserve Center and the Readiness Command by his willingness to drop everything and provide expert Information Technology support Additionally, he has served as a funeral detail member for over forty funerals for WWII veterans over the last two years.
...      I believed that (Petitioner) has now successfully “adapted to a naval environment” and that he should be seriously considered for enlistment in the Active Component of the US Navy, and therefore that his RE code should be adjusted accordingly.
Petitioner’s current employer states that he has a strong work ethic and has contributed greatly to the product development of the company and he also is responsible for maintaining the integrity of client computer networks against any damaging intrusions.

 f. Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is separated because of entry level performance and conduct. An individual may be separated for the best interest of the service or Secretarial Authority in those cases where separation is warranted but no other reason for separation is appropriate. Individuals separated for this reason may be awarded various reenlistment codes including an RE-i code.
CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. It is clear that Petitioner was properly separated with an RE-4 reenlistment code in 1998. However, it is also clear that he has served in an outstanding manner since he enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 27 February 2002 and has otherwise become a good citizen. Therefore, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is now served by the 1998 RE-4 reenlistment code and a correction to the record is appropriate to allow further active service. Accordingly, Petitioner’s record should be corrected to show that he was separated from the Navy on 17 February 1998 by reason of Secretarial Authority with an RE-i 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 rationale for the change in the reason for separation and reenlistment code.
3


RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 17 February 1998 he received an entry level separation by reason of Secretarial Authority and was assigned an RE-i reenlistment code.

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        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.



W. DEAN PFEIFFER

        
Executive Dir ector

















4

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00260-00

    Original file (00260-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    investigation the this allegation of religious discrimination against (Petitioner) by his chain of command . his,request for Courts- Thus, (Petitioner) does not have a . the same degree of assistance in preparing his mitigation request as did Further, it does appear that he did make some efforts to do more than was absolutely required in the normal performance of his duties, Petitioner's actions.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04163-01

    Original file (04163-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, given the circumstances, especially his fine performance of duty, the Board concludes that an RE-1 reenlistment code should be assigned in this case as an exception to policy. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 24 July 2000 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 naval record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02511-01

    Original file (02511-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In its response, COMNAVBASE forwarded the psychosexual evaluation and two favorable progress reports and, based on a favorable recommendation from the commanding officer of the NLSO, recommended Petitioner's enrollment in the FAP. "had discretion to formally accept or deny from,this t. The directive governing the FAP states that once the command notifies PERS-661 of allegations of child abuse, the member is ineligible to transfer or reenlist until the case is resolved. Administrative...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00938

    Original file (MD03-00938.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00938 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030430. The Petitioner never at any time ‘just left” California or his responsibilities with the Marine Corps Reserves. Based upon the above, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Board set aside said administrative discharge, correct petitioner’s DD-214 to reflect a discharge characterization of Honorable, reflect a separation code of FND (unqualified resignation) and a reenlistment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01172-99

    Original file (01172-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) , Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future reviewers will understand why he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code, contrary to the recommendation in the last performance evaluation. That Petitioner's naval record...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02126-01

    Original file (02126-01.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Naval Reserve, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 18 March 1998. Accordingly, the Board recommends that Petitioner’s reason for separation be changed to erroneous enlistment vice personality disorder. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that she received an entry level...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03945-01

    Original file (03945-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Naval Reserve filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RR-4 reenlistment code assigned on 6 April 1998. Petitioner's 214 is in error because he was never diagnosed with a personality disorder and was not processed for separation for that reason. This code will alert The Board further concludes that this Report of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07447-97

    Original file (07447-97.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (b) SECNAVINST 7220.383 (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 United States Navy filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by reinstating him to active duty, changing the reason for discharge or, in the alternative, that the record be corrected to show that the unearned portion of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00942

    Original file (ND99-00942.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    J_ M L_ said, "But (applicant) is now a very mature, responsible, loyal and respectable person. And given the great honor of being published in Outstanding Poets of 1998.I went back to school in 1997 at Wes Watkins Technology Center to complete my automotive technology course. The FSM has also received recognition and awards for outstanding performance while attending school.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07047-08

    Original file (07047-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant’ to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the Navy Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that his general discharge, reason for discharge (unsatisfactory drill attendance) and RE-4 reenlistment code be changed. Therefore, the Board concludes that the record should show that he was honorably discharged on 30 July 2005 at the end of his military obligation with a recommendation for reenlistment. That Petitioner's record be corrected to...