Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11221-06
Original file (11221-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5 1000

                                              SMW
                                                                                           Docket No: 11221-06
                                                                                          22 June 2007


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. 1552
End:     (1) Case Summary
                   (2) Subject’s naval record
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the United States Marine Corps, applied to this Board and requested to change the RE-4 reenlistment code that was assigned on 31 May 1991.
2.       The Board, consisting of Ms. ______ ~ and Mr. ~ reviewed Petitioner’s a legations of error and injustice on 20 June 2007, 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 Petitioner’s application was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statue of limitations and review the application on its merits.
c.       On 8 September 1987 Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent. His enlistment physical reported his weight as 211 pounds, which exceeded his maximum weight of 203 pounds.
d.       On 31 August 1988 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a two day period of unauthorized absence
 (UA).
 e.       On 12 September 1988 Petitioner received a psychiatric consultation after having been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and expressing suicidal ideation.
f.       On 15 September 1988 suspended punishment from the NJP was vacated.
g.       On 3 October 1988 a psychiatric evaluation diagnosed Petitioner as an alcohol abuser and with an unspecified personality disorder that was not severe enough to prevent further service. The evaluation concluded by finding Petitioner fit for full duty.
h.       On 6 October 1988 Petitioner received an NJP for disobedience of a lawful order, driving under the influence of alcohol, breaking restriction, and wrongful possession of two identification cards. He was also counseled regarding his misconduct and given a discharge warning.
i.       On 6 October 1988 Petitioner received emergency medical care after overdosing on aspirin in an attempt to avoid the correctional custody awarded by the NJP of 6 October 1988. The evaluation stated that the overdose was a suicidal gesture to manipulate his environment and not to die, and that he should be administratively separated.
j.       On 9 December 1988 Petitioner completed an alcohol abuse rehabilitation program and was subsequently placed on a weight control program.
k.       On 25 January 1989 a weight evaluation stated that Petitioner’s weight was 211 pounds and his maximum weight was 203 pounds.
1.       On 30 October 1990 Petitioner was counseled regarding his failure to comply with the weight control program by gaining 12 pounds. On 29 November 1990 he was warned that he might be recommended for administrative separation for failure to comply with the weight control program. On 10 December 1990 he was counseled for gaining 16 pounds while assigned to weight control and informed that he had until 11 March 1991 to lose the required weight.
m.       On 18 March 1991 Petitioner’s weight was 219 pounds, 16 pounds over his maximum weight. On 21 March 1991 Petitioner’s commanding officer (CO) initiated administrative separation by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to failure to conform to weight standards, and recommended a general discharge. In connection with this processing, he acknowledged the separation action and consulted counsel. On 30 April 1991 the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation.


2
n.       On 10 May 1991 Petitioner’s CO signed a service record entry assigning Petitioner a reenlistment code of RE-3P. This entry was also signed by Petitioner.
o.       On 14 May 1991 Petitioner’s CO signed a career counseling entry in which he stated that Petitioner was being discharged due to failure to meet weight standards and was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-3P. This entry was also signed by Petitioner.
p.       On 31 May 1991 a service record entry was made that assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, but the entry was not signed by the CO or any authorized official.
q.       On 31 May 1991 Petitioner was separated with a general discharge by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to his failure to conform to weight standards, and was assigned an RE—4 reenlistment code. At that time, his average proficiency and conduct marks were 4.3 and 4.1, respectively.
r.       On 5 January 1993 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) granted Petitioner an honorable discharge after noting that he had no disciplinary problems during his last two and a half years of service, and his proficiency and conduct mark averages exceeded those required for a fully honorable characterization of service.
s.       In his application, Petitioner states that when NDRB upgraded his discharge to honorable in 1993, he did not know that he needed to request a change of his reenlistment code. He further states that he served honorably and with good character, and now would like to contribute to his country during a time of war.
t.       Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from HQMC, which states, in part, as follows:
(Petitioner’s) service record has been reviewed and it has been determined that at the time of separation he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, which means that he was not recommended for reenlistment. The reenlistment code was properly assigned and was based on his overall service record.
A review of his service record indicates that he was counseled concerning failure to be at his appointed place of duty; drunk driving; underage drinking; breaking restrictions; disobedience of orders; not being recommended for promotion; failure to comply with current Marine Corps weight standards; and



3
poor performance while assigned to the Battalion weight control program. The disciplinary portion of his record shows he received two NJP’s under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for unauthorized absence and failure to obey a regulation.
this Headquarters concurs in the professional evaluation of (Petitioner’s) qualifications for reenlistment at the time of separation. Once a code is correctly assigned it is not routinely changed or upgraded as a result of events that occur after separation or based merely on the passage of time.
u.       Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals who are not recommended or eligible for reenlistment. Regulations also authorize the assignment of an RE-3P reenlistment code to individuals who are being discharged due to failure to meet physical standards, which includes weight standards.
v.       Regulations in effect at the time required a service record entry when an individual was not recommended for reenlistment, and further directed that the entry be signed by both the individual and the CO.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. Specifically, the Board is aware that the disciplinary actions were properly administered. However, Petitioner served without incident for more than two and a half years and consistently received excellent proficiency and conduct marks. Furthermore, the record now reflects that Petitioner was honorably discharged. His CO personally signed two counseling entries assigning Petitioner an RE-3P reenlistment code prior to discharge. The service record entry dated 31 May 1991 assigning the RE-4 reenlistment code was not signed by the CO. Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s reenlistment code should be changed to RE-3P vice the RE-4 actually assigned on 31 May 1991.
RECONMENDATION:
a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by changing the reenlistment code to RE-3P.








4
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 be added to the record in the future.
c.       That any material 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         A LAN E GOLDSMITH
Recorder         Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.


                                                      W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                                                         Executive Director



Reviewed and approved:
Robert T . Call
Assistant Counsel
Manpower and Affairs)

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07033-00

    Original file (07033-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 February 2001. were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Additionally, an individual cannot be promoted if he is not within the Marine Corps height and weight standards. P1400.32B, Marine Corps Promotion Manual, Volume 2, Enlisted Promotions, provides that Marines assigned RE-3P...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03364-07

    Original file (03364-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 14 March 1996, he was assigned to the Marine Corps weight control program. The Board is aware that during the time of Petitioner’s service, regulations authorized service members to be administratively separated with an 0TH discharge by reason of misconduct. Regulations also authorized a general characterization of service.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501570

    Original file (MD0501570.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (“I [Applicant] further understand that I have been recommended for Administrative discharge due to failing the Marine Corps weight control program two times and being assigned for the third time.”) Applicant chooses not to make a statement.970312: Commanding Officer, Marine Air Control Squadron 2, notifies Applicant that he is assigned to the squadron Physical Training Platoon as a result of not being within Marine Corps height and weight standards. Weight: 237. Not due to pathological...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05597-08

    Original file (05597-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TIR Docket No: 5597-08 7 August 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD Oni ie... Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552 ' (b) MARCORSEPMAN MCO P1900.16F USMC, Encl: (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 | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0081 14

    Original file (NR0081 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Mr. Zsalman, Mr. Tew, and Ms. White-Olson, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 18 June 2014, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that he received an RE-3P vice an RE-3C reentry code on 14 July 1986. b. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06260-99

    Original file (06260-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments _ (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's naval record From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a better characterization of service than the general discharge issued on 26 May 1983. considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. was being...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02064-00

    Original file (02064-00.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 United States Marine Corps submitted an application to this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show that he was not discharged on 15 April 1998 but was retained in the Marine Corps until he qualified to retire. "has an alternate weight standard The fitness report 68" At that time, he...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01685-10

    Original file (01685-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies which were available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. CONCLUSION: Upon reviq@w and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting upgrading Petitioner's general discharge to an honorable characterization of service. The Board particularly notes that he had no disciplinary action and his proficiency and conduct...

  • CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2002-073

    Original file (2002-073.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was placed on weight probation for a period of 12 months and was expected to lose the excess weight within that period. The Coast Guard incorrectly stated the applicant's MAW in both the XXXXXXXXXXX and the XXXXXXXXXXXX page 7s documenting her probationary status. None of the medical officers recommended against placing the applicant in a weight loss program or stated that because of her medical conditions it was impossible for her to comply with weight standards, except for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01550-09

    Original file (01550-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN ' Docket No: 1550-09 17 November 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the. Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL OF RECORD