Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06423-07
Original file (06423-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                                     BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                                      2 NAVY ANNEX
                                                       WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00


                                                                                 TRG
 Docket No: 6423-07
 22 May 2008

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 me mbe r of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed.
2.       The Board, consisting of revie wed Petitioner’s allegations of
 error and injustice on 13 May 2008 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.       Petitioner’s application was submitted in a timely manner.
c.       Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 30 January 1995 at age 23. At that time, she had a son born on 9 March 1993 and it appears that the son’s father was listed as the legal guardian. Apparently there was a subsist divorce. In 1998 she indicated that she could not comply with the provisions of the Family Care Plan Certificate. On 7 May 1998 she received nonjudicjal punishment for an unauthorized absence of about seven days and missing ship’s movement through neglect. The punishment imposed included restriction extra duty, forfeitures of pay and a reduction to airman apprentice. A portion of the restriction, extra duty and the reduction were suspended for six months.
d.       On 14 May 1998 Petitioner was counseled and warned that she had 30 days to resolve her problems with her inability to
 deploy or perform her duties because of parenthood. Thirteen later she was notified of discharge processing due her commission of a serious offense and parenthood. In connection with this processing, she elected to waive the right to have her case heard by an administrative discharge board. After review, the discharge authority directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct. it was noted that she had violated her counseling and warning entry. Petitioner received the general discharge by reason of misconduct on 22 June 1998. At that time, she was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
e.       Petitioner’s case was considered by the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) on 13 December 1999. NDRB found that the discharge was improper because she was processed for discharge only 13 days after she was given 30 days to resolve her problems. Accordingly, NDRB directed recharacterization of the discharge to honorable and found that the more appropriate reason for discharge was parenthood. Her record has been corrected to reflect the NDRB decision. However, NDRB had no authority to change the RE-4 reenlistment code.
f.       Although there is no documentation in Petitioner’s record, a Statement of Service for Navy Reserve Retirement indicates that she enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 30 April 2002, has earned qualifying years since then, and is currently serving as a petty officer third class.
g.       Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-3B or an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged for parenthood.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. Given the action taken by the NDRB and her subsequent service in the Navy Reserve, the Board concludes that the RE-4 reenlistment code is no longer warranted and it should now be changed to an RE-3B reenlistment code.
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 be corrected to show that on 22June 1998 she was assigned an RE-3B reenlistment code vice
2

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        BRIAN J. GEORGE
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 72 3.6(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 | CY2002 | 06065-02

    Original file (06065-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a ber in the Navy, filed an application with ng that her reenlistment code be changed to . The Board excellent service, RE-4 reenlistment reenlistment due t Board believes tha reenlistment code less restrictive R recruiters that he reenlistment is au The Board further should be filed in undl reviewers will reenlistment code. Given the circumstances, the ncludes that this Report of Proceedings 'etitioner's naval record so that all future stand the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11012-07

    Original file (11012-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SMW Docket No: 11012-07 30 January 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW i i OVAL RECORD OF as Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting an honorable discharge and RE-3B...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02056-02

    Original file (02056-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    2056-02 25 March 2002 From: To: Subj: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF a_, t* Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C.1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's Naval Record (4) DD Form 214 Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that her reenlistment code be changed. She had no disciplinary actions during...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07857-01

    Original file (07857-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Naval Reserve filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 18 February 2000. 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 assignment of the RE-3B reenlistment code. That...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06232-01

    Original file (06232-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The majority 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 assignment of the RE-3B reenlistment code. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 18 December 1998 she was assigned an RE-3B reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. Since Petitioner has been treated no differently than others who failed to advance to E-3, the minority could...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02760-04

    Original file (02760-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member in the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show thata better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 27 December 1999.2. In connection with this processing, she elected to waive the right to have her case heard by an administrative discharge board. Regulations require the assignment of an RE-3B or an RE-4 reenlistment code when an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08485-06

    Original file (08485-06.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 that her reenlistment code be changed.2 Board, consisting of Ms. Ms. and Ms. previewed Petitioner’s allegations error andinjustice on 9 January 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. The Board further concludes that this Report of proceedings...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10755-09

    Original file (10755-09.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. Nevertheless, she was administratively processed for separation by reason of parenthood due to her inability to comply with the NFC program. On 23 February 2004 the discharge authority, Navy Personnel Command (NPC), directed a reenlistment code of RE-3B, or a RE-4, if warranted by the service record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13656-10

    Original file (13656-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with Ghd Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed. Since an RE-3B reenlistment code is authorized by regulatory guidance for a Sailor who is separated for this reason, the Board concludes that an RE-3B reenlistment code is more appropriate than the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01493-08

    Original file (01493-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Mr. ¥ Ms. MMe, and Ms. * reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 30 September 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. In Petitioner’s case, her RE-4 reenlistment code was not warranted based on her overall evaluations. Therefore, the Board concludes that an RE-3B reenlistment code which is authorized by regulatory guidance for individuals...