Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05470-06
Original file (05470-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-S 100




 SMW
 Docket No: 5470-06
16 October 2006

From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
Subj OF N AVAL RECORD OF

Ref:     (a) 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 United States Navy, applied to this Board requesting a change in his RE-4 reenlistment code.
2.       The Board, consisting of Mr. Mr. and Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 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 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.       Petitioner’s application was filed in a timely manner.
c.       On 31 July 2001 Petitioner enlisted in the Navy at age 18. During the period from 14 February 2002 to 29 February 2004 Petitioner received four performance evaluations that recommended retention and promotion.
d.       On 10 June 2004 Petitioner failed the run/walk portion of the physical readiness test (PRT).

e.       On 15 June 2004 Petitioner received a performance evaluation that recommended retention and promotion. -
f.       On 24 July 2004 Petitioner was counseled regarding the PRT failure of 15 June 2004, and directed to participate in fitness
 enhancement during which he would participate in physical training at least three times a week.
g.       On 13 October 2004 Petitioner failed the run/walk portion of the PRT, but his run/walk time improved by almost a minute and he lost 17 pounds.
h.       On 14 February 2005 Petitioner was counseled regarding the PRT failure of 13 October 2004, and again provided the necessary corrective action.
i.       A performance evaluation of 1 June 2005 stated that Petitioner was a key contributor, but was not recommended for retention due to PRT failures. On 30 July 2005 he was honorably released from active duty and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
j.       During his enlistment, Petitioner was awarded the Global
 War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Navy Unit Commendation,
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, three awards of the Sea Service
Deployment Ribbon, three awards of the Overseas Service Ribbon,
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, National Defense Service
Medal, and Navy Good Conduct Medal.
k.       In his application, Petitioner states that he served four years of honorable service and was never the subject of any disciplinary action, but received an RE-4 reenlistment code because he failed two PRT’s. Petitioner further states that he does not deserve such a code and desires to reenlist in another branch of the armed forces. He requests that the RE-4 reenlistment code be changed.
1.       Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to Sailors who have completed their enlistment. The assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code under these circumstances means that a Sailor is not eligible or recommended for reenlistment. However, regulations also authorize the assignment of an RE-3F reenlistment code for a Sailor, such as Petitioner, who was not recommended for retention due to PRT failures.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. In this regard, although Petitioner was not recommended for retention, the Board notes that this recommendation was based only on his failure of two PRT’s. Since an RE-3F reenlistment code is authorized f or a Sailor who is separated upon completion of required active service, but not recommended for retention due to PRT failures, the Board believes that this code is the most



2
appropriate reenlistment code. Accordingly, the record should be corrected to show that he was assigned an RE-3F reenlistment code.
RECOMMENDATION:
a.       That Petitioner’s Naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-3F on 30 July 2005 vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually assigned on that date.
b.       That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s Naval record.
c.       That upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 21 June 2006.
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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09623-06

    Original file (09623-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100SMWDocket No: 9623-06 15 March 2007From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. In his application, Petitioner states that the RE-4 reenlistment code is preventing him from serving in the Navy Reserve.j. However, regulations also authorize the assignment of an RE-3F reenlistment code for a Sailor, such as Petitioner, who...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12304-09

    Original file (12304-09.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 and nonrecommendation for reenlistment be changed. g. 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 further corrected to reflect that he was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08747-07

    Original file (08747-07.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 that his reenlistment code be changed.2 The Board consisting of Messrsand reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 17 June 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Reference (b) authorizes the issuance of an RE-4 reenlistment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02668-06

    Original file (02668-06.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 that his reenlistment code be changed.2 The Board, consisting of Messrs andreviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 October 2006 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Petitioner’s separation performance evaluation for the period...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08175-08

    Original file (08175-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 . 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 reenlistment code. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 18 October 2005 Petitioner was issued an RE-3F reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually issued on that date.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03828-09

    Original file (03828-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON BDC 20370-5100 TAL Docket No: 3828-09 1 March 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Récords To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ony Ref; (a) 10 U.S.C. 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 reenlistment code. The Board, consisting of Mr. iP Ms. ellie...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10137-05

    Original file (10137-05.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100TRG Docket No: 10137-05 28 March 2007 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF ggasi Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.c. At that time, he was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07428-01

    Original file (07428-01.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, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy filed an application with this Board requesting that the RE-4 reenlistment code issued on 30 May 1997 be changed to RE-1. As indicated, there is no basis in the Given the circumstances, the Board concludes that The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01703-09

    Original file (01703-09.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 her reenlistment code be changed. Reference (c), however, authorizes the issuance of an RE-3F reenlistment code for a Sailor, such as Petitioner, who was not recommended for retention due to PFA failures. That Petitioner's naval record be further corrected to show that she was recommended for reenlistment on 8 April 1996 vice not being...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05384-09

    Original file (05384-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No: 05384-09 26 April 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF} Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Therefore, the Board concludes that his RE-4 reenlistment code should be changed to RE-3F, and his separation code should be changed from JGH to JBK, In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. ...