DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 5172-08
5 February 2009
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD OF
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
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, filed enclosure (1) with this
Board requesting that her reenlistment code be changed.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Cee: “aE. and
WWMM eviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 3 February 2009 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 14 September 2005
after five years of prior honorable service.
d. Petitioner’s record contains an administrative remarks
entry dated 19 December 2007 which states, in part, that the
changes in her family care plan placed her in a nondeployable
status. Shortly thereafter, on 24 January 2008, she submitted a
family care certificate which stated that she could not comply
with the Navy Family Care (NFC) policy program due to legal
circumstances. She also submitted a statement of explanation
regarding the legal circumstances.
e. On 6 February 2008 the discharge authority directed
separation with a characterization of service warranted her
service record and an RE-3B reenlistment code. This
recommendation also stated that an RE-4 reenlistment code may be
assigned, if warranted by the service record.
f. On 25 February 2008 Petitioner’s commanding officer
recommended separation under honorable conditions by reason of
convenience of the government due to parenthood as evidence by
failure to comply with the NFC policy and unavailability for
worldwide deployment. As a result, on 6 March 2008, the
discharge authority again directed separation with a
characterization of service warranted by the record and an RE-3B
reenlistment code.
g. On 7 March 2008 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for making a false official statement and forgery by
Signing a “sick-in-quarters” chit.
h. Petitioner’s overall record reflects satisfactory to above
average performance. In this regard, her record contains three
performance evaluations for the period from 16 April 2004 to 30
January 2007 which recommended retention and stated that she was
promotable. The individual trait averages (ITA) for these
performance evaluations were 4.29, 4.43, and 4.43.
i. Petitioner was administratively processed for separation
by reason of parenthood due to her inability to comply with the
NFC policy program. As a result, on 21 March 2008 she was
discharged under honorable conditions by reason of parenthood and
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
j. Character of service is based, in part, on ITAs.
Petitioner’s ITA at the time of her discharge was 4.4. An ITA of
3.0 was required at that time for a fully honorable
characterization of service.
k. An RE-3B reenlistment code may be assigned to Sailors
separated due to parenthood, pregnancy, and/or childbirth. This
code may not bar reenlistment, but requires that a waiver be
obtained from recruiting personnel who are responsible for
determining whether an individual meets the standards for
reenlistment, and whether or not a request for a waiver of a
reenlistment code is feasible. A Sailor separated for this
reason may also receive an RE-4 reenlistment code, which means
that the Sailor is not recommended for retention or reenlistment.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants partial
favorable action.
The Board notes Petitioner’s disciplinary infraction and does not
condone her misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board’s decision is
based primarily on Petitioner's overall satisfactory record of
more than six years of honorable service. The Board also notes
that her ITA exceeded requirements for a fully honorable
characterization of service and that the discharge authority
directed characterization of service as warranted by the service
record.
The Board also notes that Petitioner’s discharge was based solely
on her nondeployable status due to parenthood. However, the
Board concludes that even though an RE-3B reenlistment code is
authorized by regulatory guidance for a Sailor who is separated
for this reason, the RE-4 reenlistment code is warranted due to
the seriousness of her misconduct which resulted in NUP.
In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an
injustice warranting the following corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that
she was honorably discharged on 21 March 2008 vice discharged
under honorable conditions on that same 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. ZASALMAN 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 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.
ues
Execut we
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10755-09
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 | CY2009 | 07126-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. e. In August 1988 Petitioner was administratively processed for separation by reason of pregnancy/childbirth due to her inability to comply with the NFC policy program. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing ~ the RE-4 reenlistment code, assigned on 5 August 1988, to RE-3B.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13656-10
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 | CY2004 | 02760-04
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 | CY2008 | 01493-08
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07171-00
The Board also notes that even though Petitioner's trait averages differ on his enlisted performance record and his performance evaluation, both marks exceed the required average of 2.0 which is needed for a The Board further fully honorable characterization of service. notes Petitioner's only performance evaluation of record in which he was recommended for retention and promotion and believes that the sole reason for separation was due to him being nondeployable because he could not find...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00327-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference {a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this 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 by reason of .parenthood, the Board concludes that the interest of justice would better be better served by changing Petitioner’s RE-4 reenlistment code to Re-3B rather than the RE-4 now of record. That...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06423-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00TRGDocket No:6423-0722 May 2008From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OFRef: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed.2. Petitioner’s case was considered by the Naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06682-08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No: 06682-08 19 May 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 3m Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. In Petitioner’s case, her RE-4 reenlistment code was not warranted based on her overall evaluations and her separation code should have been JDG for parenthood. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07204-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2O370-51OODocket No: 07204-06 23 January 2007From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the NavySubj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD OFRef: (a) 10 U.S.C. Administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of parenthood. That Petitioners s naval record be corrected to show that on 9 July 2002 Petitioner was issued a RE-3B reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually...