DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TRG
Docket No: 9276-07
4 December 2008

 

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy

  

REVIEW.OF NAVAL RECORD OF ¢iigiildiiia

ite i i i ti

 

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl: (1) Case Summary
(2) Subject's naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
member of the Navy Reserve, filed an application with this Board
requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed and/or that
she be reinstated to active duty to qualify for retirement.

2. The Board, consisting of Mr. lille, Moc. iii, and Ms.

wii, veviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
18 November 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the limited 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 filed in a timely manner.

c. Petitioner was honorably discharged from the Regular
Navy on 24 March 1998 with 10 years of active service. At that
time, she was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-6 and received
separation pay of $17,204.40. She was denied further active
service and assigned the RE-6 reenlistment code because she had
reached the service limitations for individuals serving in
paygrade E-4.

ad. On 25 March 1998 she enlisted in the Navy Reserve and
earned three consecutive qualifying years for reserve retirement
purposes. Subsequently, during the period from 24 July 2001 to 3
July 2005, she completed two periods of axtended active duty
totaling about two and one half years. On 7 April 2005, she
reenlisted in the Navy Reserve for six years.
e. On 14 July 2005 Petitioner reported for another period
of extended active duty and remained on active duty for several
years. A statement of service for reserve retirement purposes
shows that at the end of her anniversary year on 24 March 2007
she was credited with 19 years of qualifying service for reserve
retirement purposes.

f. Petitioner's evaluation for the period ending 1 August
2007 is adverse with a 1.0 mark in military bearing, because she
had failed three Physical Fitness Assessments (PFA's) in a four
year period. Therefore, she was not recommended for advancement
or retention in the Navy. The available documentation shows that
in the spring of 2007 she was 5'4" tall and weighed 181 pounds.
On 1 August 2007 she was released from active duty at the
expiration of her active obligated service with an RE-4
reenlistment code. At that time, she was serving as a petty
officer second class (BM2; E-5).

g. The DD Form 214 issued on 1 August 2007 indicates that
Petitioner had completed 16 years, 3 months and 22 days of active
service and three years of inactive service. Accordingly, at the
end of her anniversary year on 24 March 2008 she was credited
with 20 years of qualifying service for reserve retirement
purposes. She has been issued a Notification of Eligibility for
Retired Pay at Age 60.

h. Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from
the Navy Personnel Command which states that Petitioner did have
three PFA failures in a four year period. However, it is noted
that she did receive an excellent score on her spring 2007 PFA,
which would have allowed a body composition waiver at the
discretion of the commanding officer. Given the circumstances,
and her otherwise excellent performance, the advisory opinion
recommends that the RE-4 reenlistment code be changed to RE-3T.
This code will allow consideration for an enlistment waiver if
she can meet the PFA criteria.

1. Also attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion
from another section in the Navy Personnel Command which
apparently interprets the PFA results as showing that she only
had two PFA failures. The drafter of the advisory opinion notes
that she was a stellar performer and believes that she was
treated unfairly and in a callous manner when she was denied
further active service. It is recommended that the reenlistment
code be changed to RE-1.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants partial
favorable action. It is clear from the available evidence that
she did not meet the body composition standards for at least
three years and she was on notice that she had to meet standards
in order to be continued on active duty. Further, since she was
at the end or her active duty obligation, administrative
discharge processing was not required. Therefore, it was only a
command determination whether or not her orders should have been
renewed. Since there is certainly a basis for the denial of
continuation, the Board concludes that she should not be
reinstated to active duty.

Concerning the reenlistment code issue, the Board is aware that
the regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-3T or an RE-4
reenlistment code when an individual is denied reenlistment due
to PFA failures. Given the recommendation for an RE-3T in one of
the advisory opinions and considering her excellent performance
of duty, the Board concludes that the reenlistment code should
now be changed to RE-3T vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of
record. This code will allow consideration for a return to
active duty if she can meet standards in the future.

 

 

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 when
she was released from active duty on 1 August 2007 she was
assigned an RE-3T reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment
code now of record.

b. That Petitioner's request for reinstatement on active duty be
denied.

c. 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 \ 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 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.

WD Dawn

W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Di