Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07200-06
Original file (07200-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR COPRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
         2 NAVY ANNEX
          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                  TRG
 Docket No: 7200-06
          13 October 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 Su a y
 (2) Subject’s naval record

 1.       Pursuant o he provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Na , filed an application with this Board requesting tha his reenlistment code be changed.
2.       The Board, consisting of . Mr. and reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
 injustice on 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 Petitione ~ allegation of en or 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.       Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on age 20. Subsequently, he was diagnosed him    which was not correctable to meet Navy standards, and recommended for an entry level separation. On he was notified of separation processing and, in connection with this processing, he elected to waive his procedural rights. After review, the separation authority approved an entry level separation with a narrative reason of separation of “Failed Medical Physical procurement Standards and he was so separated on At that time he was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
d.       With his application, he has submitted documentation from his private physician which purports to show that he does not have asthma. He believes, in effect, that it is improper to assign an RE-4 reenlistment code, in a case such as this, when the medical diagnosis is in dispute.
         e.       Regulations allow for the assignment of his RE-3E reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of erroneous enlistment. When an individual is discharged by reason of “Failed Medical Physical Procurement Standards” the only authorized code is an RE-4 reenlistment 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’s enlistment could be considered to be erroneous because he would not have been enlisted if it had been known that he would be diagnosed with asthma while in recruit training. Given the submission of his physician showing that he does not have asthma, the Board concludes that the assignment of the most restrictive reenlistment code of RE-4 is no longer appropriate, and should be changed to an RE-3E reenlistment code as an exception to policy. This code will alert recruiters that there is a problem which must be resolved before enlistment should be authorized.

The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceeding should be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reason for the assignment of the RE-3E reenlistment code.

 RECOI4MENDAT ION:

 a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 to show that on ,~ he was assigned an RE-3E reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.

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 Director



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807325

    Original file (NC9807325.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG Docket No: 7325-98 16 July 1999 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 4% Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Navy filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her reenlistment code be changed. Based on the doctors...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_16_49 CDT 2000

    Original file (Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_16_49 CDT 2000.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    c. age 20. doctor notes that “this condition was not correctable to meet Navy standards” and recommended administrative separation. Therefore, the Board concludes that the RE-4 Additionally, there is no However, the Board This code will alert recruiters that 2 The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will be aware of the diagnosis of asthma and understand the reason for the change in the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08684-01

    Original file (08684-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    NAVY WASHINGTON DC 2 ANNEX DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 20370-5100 JRE Docket No: 8684-01 8 February 2002 From: To: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy Subj : REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. The Board, consisting of Ms. Nofziger and Messrs. Chapman and Kim, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 31 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02819-11

    Original file (02819-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS Docket No: 2819-11 1 April 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Tos Secretary of the Navy NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) Title 10 0.6.0. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting his naval record be corrected by changing the reentry code. The Board, consisting of Mr. Butherus, Ms. Henkel, and Ms. Countryman,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01756-09

    Original file (01756-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner applied to this Board requesting hER naval record be corrected by changing the reentry code she was assigned on 8 January 2009. The Board, consisting of Mr - ieee, Mr. im and Ms. WME ceviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11 March 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. A Sailor who is found to be not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02489-07

    Original file (02489-07.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 a change in his reenlistment code.2. With his application, Petitioner states that when asked in recruit training if he ever had asthma prior to entering the service, he initially circled “NO”, but when he was diagnosed with asthma, he changed his answer to “YES”. In the doctor’s letter he stated, in part, that after reviewing his records, Petitioner...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07730-01

    Original file (07730-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show that she was assigned a reenlistment code more favorable than the code of RE-4 she was assigned on 30 July 1998. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hogue, Kastner and allegations of error and injustice on 1 November 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04585-01

    Original file (04585-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a more favorable reenlistment code than the RE-4 code he received on 13 October 1998. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Kastner and Rothlein and Ms. Schnittman reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07015-01

    Original file (07015-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    states that because he is free of diplopia, Petitioner should be The doctor considered cured. 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 reason for the change in the reenlistment code. Therefore, the Board concludes that the Given the This code will alert RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that a. on 8 October 1999 he was assigned an RE-3E...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08325-01

    Original file (08325-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a more favorable reenlistment code than the RE-4 code he received on 20 April 2001. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Kastner and Rothlein and Ms. Schnittman reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined...