DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5106RS
Docket No: 1497-06
28 September 2006
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 4
me aay
) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Ref: (a
(b) NAVMILPERSCOMINST 1900.1B
é‘
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/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) with this
Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected
to show a change in the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 19
September 2003.
2. The Board, consisting Sime nee and Ms.
MN viewed Petitioner*®®"allegations of error and injustice
on 30 August 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. Enclosure (1) was filed ina timely manner.
Cc. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 20 September 1998.
He was advanced to aviation boatswain mate third class
(ABF3; E-4) and was awarded a Good Conduct Medal and a Navy and
Marine Corps Achievement Medal.
d. On 31 August 2003, Petitioner received a special
evaluation for the purpose of removing his advancement
recommendation. The evaluation assigned a marginal mark of 2.0
in the marking category of Military bearing and character, anda
Marginal overall trait average of 2.71. The evaluation also gave
a promotion recommendation of “significant problems”. Further,
he was not recommended for retention. This evaluation covered a
period of about 76 days.
e. On 19 September 2003 Petitioner was honorably released
from active duty and transferred to the Navy Reserve. At that
time, he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.
£f. Petitioner has submitted documentation to show that he
is now a firefighter at Naval Activity, Puerto Rico, and has
taken several college courses.
g. Enclosure (2) to reference (b) states that an individual
who is released from active duty and not recommended for
retention must be assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4. An RE-1
reenlistment code means that an individual is fully qualified to
be reenlisted based on the needs of the service.
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 believes that given his prior
record of service, Petitioner’s last evaluation, covering less
than three months, should not be the controlling factor in
assigning his reenlistment code. The Board also notes
Petitioner’s excellent post-service adjustment. Accordingly,
even though Petitioner’s RE-4 reenlistment code was assigned in
accordance with regulations, the Board believes that assignment
of that reenlistment code was unfair, and an RE-1 reenlistment
code would be more appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the
RE-4 reenlistment code, assigned on 19 September 2003, to RE-1.
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.
7. Lun
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.
S {
OQ ery
Executive Dir
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05048-01
The Board finds it a strange that an individual is RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code, assigned on 9 October 1991, to RE-3R. That Petitioner's record be further corrected by "not recommended for reenlistment" from the removing the entry enlisted performance record (page 9). 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08102-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 26 May 1989. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that she was not discharged on 20 May 1989 but continued to serve on active duty until 22 September 1989 when she was released from active duty with her...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03928-02
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 19 September 1995. e. On 19 September 1995 he received an entry level separation by reason of personality disorder. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief.
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 | 05258-02
1552 Encl: (1) (2) (3) DD Form 149 w/attachments Case Summary 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 that his reenlistment code be changed. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing assigned on 6 September 2001, to the RE-4 reenlistment code, RE-1. 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06554-07
That board considered Petitioner for promotion, but did not select him.d. Based on the findings and action of the PERB, the Board concludes that the marginal fitness reports should not have been part of Petitioner’s naval record when he was considered for promotion in 2006.Whether Petitioner would have been selected for promotion in 2006 or not (without the marginal fitness reports) cannot be known and is largely a matter of conjecture. Moreover, when asked to provide substantive comments...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02853-03
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100TJR Docket No: 2853-03 15 August 2003From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Furthermore, both reporting seniors stated that Petitioner was an exemplary leader with superb performance, and that the only reason he was not recommended for advancement was because of his failure to obtain his ESWS qualifications. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07531-05
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed.2. Reference (b) authorizes the issuance of an RE-4 reenlistment code to Sailors who have completed their enlistment and are serving in paygrade E-4 at the time of their release from active duty. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned an RE-i reenlistment code on 15 September...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12156-09
Petitioner further requested completely removing the fitness report for 6 August 2007 to 30 June 2008. In correspondence attached as enclosure (4), the HOMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's request to strike his failures of selection by the FY 2007-2010 AR Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards has commented to the effect that this request has merit and warrants favorable action. e. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05655-07
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her reenlistment code be changed.2. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.3. Based on the foregoing, the Board believes that Petitioner would have been retained if it were not for her hardship, and concludes that since an RE-3H reenlistment code...