Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02895-06
Original file (02895-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203705100

TRG
Docket No: 2895-06
 1 November 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 record
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed to an RE-i reenlistment code.
2.       The Board, consisting of Mr. Mr. wand Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 17 October 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 1 July 1998 at age 18.        After completion of initial training he reported to his first duty station on 17 June 1999. The two performance evaluations covering the period from 18 July 1999 to 15 July 2001 contain marginal marks of 2.0 in the categories of quality of professional knowledge, quality of work, military bearing/character and teamwork. The evaluation comments mention lack of initiative, need for supervision, poor personal appearance and failure to pay debts. The second evaluation mentions that he was beginning to improve in some of these areas. In both evaluations, he was recommended for promotion and retention in the Navy.
d.       Petitioner was an unauthorized absentee from 20 to 27 December 2001. Although it is not filed in his record, he apparently received nonjudicial punishment for this offense because at that time he was reduced in rate from seaman(SN; E-3) to seaman apprentice (SA; E-2).



e.       In the evaluation for the period 16 July 2001 to 1 July 2002, Petitioner was assigned satisfactory marks of 3.0 in every category in which he was evaluated. The evaluation comments mention that he was a good sailor during the evaluation period, and he was recommended for promotion and retention in the Navy.
f.       Petitioner was released from active duty on 30 June 2002 with his service characterized as honorable. At that time, he was serving as an SA. He was not recommended for reenlistment and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. He signed a statement acknowledging this action.
g.       Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual completes an extended period of active duty and is serving in pay grade E-2. An RE-3R reenlistment code is authorized when an individual is recommended for advancement but is not advanced to petty officer during a first enlistment.
h.       Petitioner desires a change in his reenlistment code so that he can enlisted in a reserve component of the armed services.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. The Board does not condone the period of unauthorized absence which resulted in his reduction to SA and his period of poor performance. Further, it is clear that the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code was required by regulations. Given these factors, the Board concludes that.an RE-i reenlistment code is not appropriate in this case.
However, since the last evaluation recommended him for promotion and retention in the Navy, it is clear that he would have been readvanced to SN as soon as he reached the required time in rate. Since he was recommended for advancement and retention in his last performance evaluation and desires to serve, the Board concludes that no useful service is served by the RE-4 reenlistment code and it should now be changed to an RE-3R reenlistment code as an exception to policy. This code will alert recruiters that there is a problem that must be resolved before reenlistment is authorized, but will not preclude consideration for reenlistment.
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 reasons for the change in the reenlistment code.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record by corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 to show that on 30 June 2002 he was assigned an RE-3R reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.
b. That his request for an RE-i reenlistment code be denied.
c. 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 Director













Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2008 | 05129-08

    Original file (05129-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board also finds that the service record entry dated 3 September 2003, does not justify assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code since the record shows that the last administrative action regarding his rank was a promotion to pay grade E-3 and not a reduction. Therefore, the Board concludes that the record should be corrected to show that he was assigned an RE-3R reenlistment code on 3 October 2003, and that he was recommended for retention on 22 October 2007. That Petitioner's naval...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00451-05

    Original file (00451-05.doc) 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 that his reenlistment code be changed. In order to receive an RE-3R reenlistment code, a Sailor must be recommended for advancement or be promotable. Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s record does not warrant the worst reenlistment code of RE-4, and that code should be changed to RE-3R.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05048-01

    Original file (05048-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2008 | 04524-08

    Original file (04524-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2009. In your application you are requesting that an RE-3B reenlistment code be changed. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • 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 | CY2002 | 05475-01

    Original file (05475-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an 1. enlisted member of the Navy filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be corrected by removing the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 23 April 1998 from her record. Therefore, the Board concludes that the NJP should to indicate that the commanding there is still punishment Although the Since the commanding officer set aside the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08640-00

    Original file (08640-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. l:he evidence of record the ':he RE-4 reenlistment code However, since there is RECOMMENDATION: a. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4679 13

    Original file (NR4679 13.pdf) 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 his RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code, which was issued on 13 April 2013. At that time he was recommended for promotion and continued service in the Navy Reserve, and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. Such a code may also be assigned if the commanding officer does not recommend the individual for reenlistment.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08198-04

    Original file (08198-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Mr. Leeman, Mr. Pfeiffer and Ms. McCormick, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 August 2005 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Petitioner subsequently enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve, On 14 September 2001 he reported for active duty and served for one year. Therefore, Petitioner’s record should be corrected to show that on 11...