rt dln LY MANN EL;
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DGC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 12113-08
16 September 2009
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: : - En eren
“REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD .
Ref: {a} Tile 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1): DD’ Form 149 dtd .19 Nov 08 w/attachments
{2} Subject’s naval record
1. 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 by changing his RE-4 (not recommended) reenlistment
code, which was assigned on 6 September 2004, to an RE-1
(recommended) .
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Wie: RS
and sapere reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error
and injustice on 26 August 2009. Pursuant to its regulations,
the majority, Mr. J. Hicks and Ms. McCormick, determined that
the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record. The minority, Mr. Washington,
recommended that Petitioner's requést be denied. 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 ag follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Although it appears that enclosure (1) was not filed in
i+t—is--in--the—interest_of sustice to_waive-the
statute of Limitations and review the application on its
merits. a a
ec. Petitioner entered active duty in the Navy on 7
September 2000. He received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) on 8
April 2004 for failure to obey an order or regulation. His
evaluation report ending on 15 June 2004 noted his NuJP, but
recommended him for retention. His final evaluation report
ending on 6 September 2004 also recommended him for retention.
He was honorably discharged as a BM3 (pay grade E-4) and
transferred to the Navy Reserve on 6 September 2004, and was
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. On 22 August 2008, he was
honorably discharged from the Navy Reserve, and recommended for
reenlistment.
d. Petitioner's senior rater, an ensign (pay grade 0-1),
consistently recommended him for retention. Petitioner's
commanding officer, a lieutenant (pay grade 0-3), assigned him
the RE-4 reenlistment.
MAJORITY CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
the majority finds an injustice warranting full relief. The
majority notes that Petitioner had only one NJP for a minor
infraction in a four year enlistment, and was serving in pay
grade E-4. ‘The majority also notes that his senior rater
consistently recommended him for retention, and that he was
recommended for reenlistment when he was discharged from the
Navy Reserve. The majority concludes that an RE-4 reenlistment
code no longer serves a useful purpose, and that his record
should be corrected to show his was issued an RE-1. In view of
the foregoing, the majority recommends the following corrective
action.
MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show
that on 6 September 2004, he was issued an RE-1 reenlistment
code, vice the RE-4 actually issued that date.
b. That any material or entries 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.
ce. 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 béing made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.
2
MINORITY CONCLUSION:
The minority finds that no relief is warranted. He notes that
although Petitioner’s immediate rater recommended retention,
even after his NUP, the commanding officer, a more seasoned
lieutenant, is the individual who assigned the reenlistment
code. The minority concludes that the RE-4 reenlistment code
was correctly assigned.
MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's application be denied.
5. 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
entitied matter.
ROBERT D. 4ZSALMAN BRIAN . GEORGE
Recorder Acting Recorder
6. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
W. DEAN PFET
MAJORITY REPORT
. ry *
Reviewed and approved: .
A- 14-84
Robert T. Call
MINORITY REPORT Assistant General Counsel
Mannower and Reserve Affairs)
Reviewed and approved:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10728-08
MAJORITY CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of the evidence of record, although incomplete, a majority of the Board, consisting of Messrs. Dunn and Pfeiffer, concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable action. Further, the minority believes that if Petitioner were recommended for reenlistment when he was ‘released from active duty in April 2004, he would have had concerns regarding the RE-4 reenlistment code which bars reenlistment based on the recommendation of his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1360 13
Enclosure (2) h. On 23 August 2004 Petitioner was so discharged. wa The majority of the Board also relies upon the advisory opinion from the Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division which recommended an upgrade to Petitioner's reenlistment code; removal of all adverse material in Petitioner's Official Military Personnel File pertaining to administrative separation ror misconduct due to drug abuse; and that all associated relief be granted. The minority notes that Petitioner was found guilty...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08398-06
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.3. At the time of the urinalysis he had stated that he had been given an unauthorized prescription drug by another Sailor on a drill weekend.e. Otherwise, there is no reason for an administrative discharge board to consider a case, and petitioners will surely opt for the informal exparte proceedings of this Board rather than the more demanding and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08650-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, Board requesting, in effect, by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 25 September 2000. that his naval record be corrected filed enclosure (1) with this McPartlin, and Ms. 2. September 2000, the recruit division commander also recommended By letter of 7 in retention, citing his demonstration of Commitment.W lloutstanding job on his duties," and his '@the Navy core values of Honor,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11631-08
Regulations state that Marines serving on active duty in pay grade E-4 and below will receive SA proficiency and conduct marks on 31 January and 31 July, and Marines who have received proficiency and conduct marks within the prior 90 days will receive SA proficiency and conduct marks of "not available" (NA). The Board also considers his two deployments to Iraq, awards, and present status in the Marine Corps Reserve. c. That Petitioner's naval record be further corrected by removing any...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07226-06
FEB-27-2007 08:40 PERS-312 9018742764 P.002 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX, WASHINGTON DC 20370-8100 SJN Docket No: 07226-06 5 February 2007 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) 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04732-01
b. Petitioner's application to the Board was filed in a timely manner. Petitioner's naval record. This code will allow reenlistment if he is otherwise and the support he has received He concludes that the best In this regard, he The minority also 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 reason for discharge and reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11012-07
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 | CY2000 | 06951-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that his reenlistment code be changed. The petty officer filled out some paperwork for him to see a psychiatrist and told him to tell the psychiatrist that he was depressed and suicidal, and had attempted suicide at an early age. MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION: a.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10568-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 pra Docket No: 10568-09 12 July 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Toe: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL OF RECORD * ak Ref: (a) 10 WsaSeE5 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 United States Navy, filed enclosure (1)...