Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03034-06
Original file (03034-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 SJN
 Docket No: 03034-06
19 September 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)      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 a change in his reenlistment code.
2 The Board, consisting of Mr , Mr and Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 7 September 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 in a timely manner.
c.       Petitioner first enlisted in the Navy on 12 October 1995. He served continuously on active duty for more than eight years without disciplinary incident. During this period he was promoted to third class petty officer (ABF3;E4) and received two Good Conduct Medals.


d.       On 8 August 2004, Petitioner was honorably discharged from active duty at the expiration of his last enlistment with a narrative reason of “non-retention on active duty.” At that time he was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
e.       In his application, Petitioner states that he was discharged due to high year tenure restrictions. In this regard, the high-year tenure for a third class petty officer is eight years, and there is no documentation in the record to suggest that Petitioner was prevented from reenlisting for any other reason.
f.       An RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is separated at the expiration of his/her term of active obligated service and is not recommended for retention. However, if the individual is not permitted to reenlist due to high year tenure, and RE-6 reenlistment code may be assigned.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action.
Specifically, the Board believes that since Petitioner completed more than eight years of active service without any disciplinary infraction and received two Good Conduct Medals, the interests of justice would be better served by changing his record to show the assignment of an RE-6 code, which means he was denied reenlistment due to High Year Tenure. This code would more accurately reflect the quality of his service.
RECOMMENDATION.
a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 8 August 2004 Petitioner was issued a RE-6 reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually issued 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. GOLDSMI TH
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 7 23.6(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 | CY2008 | 05358-08

    Original file (05358-08.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 that his reenlistment code be changed. Documentary material considered -by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code, assigned on 3 June 2005, to RE-6.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05885-06

    Original file (05885-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting a change in his separation code to establish entitlement to full separation pay. The Board, consisting of Mr. , Mr. and Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error a the injustice on 24 October 2006 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12861-09

    Original file (12861-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to by setting aside his discharge from active duty on 25 November 2009 due to high year tenure as a second class petty officer, pay grade E-5, and showing that he was extended on active duty until 20 March 2010. The Board, consisting of Messrs .,d aa me AER ev iewed allegations of...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02698-02

    Original file (02698-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    2698-02 28 August 2002 From: To: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: Encl: (a) 10 U.S.C. In this regard, the Board notes the average marks In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of RECOMMENDATION: a. the RE-4 reenlistment code, That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing assigned on 16 June 2001, to RE-1. 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2005 | 07180-05

    Original file (07180-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marines Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change in his reenlistment code.2 The Board, consisting of Mr Mr and Mr reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 23 February 2006 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. The reenlistment code of RE-4 means that Petitioner...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06751-00

    Original file (06751-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    C. Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 31 August 1991 for six years as an EN3 (E-4). MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the majority, consisting of Messrs. Lightle and Geisler, concludes In this that Petitioner's request warrants favorable action. MINORITY CONCLUSION: The minority member, Mr. Taylor, agrees with Petitioner's request should be granted by changing his reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-6.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03460-06

    Original file (03460-06.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 his reenlistment code.2 The Board consisting ~ reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 September 2006 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. On 10 June 2005, Petitioner signed an enlisted performance evaluation...