Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09660-09
Original file (09660-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TUR
Docket No: 9660-09
8 July 2010

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

 

Subj]: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD OF%§

i ee

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
(b) OPNAVINST 1160.5C

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 his reenlistment code be changed.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs . iii E-aiee, and

Mies ceviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 7 July 2010 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 enlisted in the Navy on 1 July 2004 at age
18. He served without disciplinary incident and was advanced to
paygrade E-4. The record contains two performance evaluations
for periods from 16 July 2006 to 15 June 2008, both of which

recommended him for advancement and retention.
d. On 30 June 2008, while serving as a petty officer third
class, Petitioner was honorably released from active duty and
transferred to the Navy Reserve upon completion of his required
active service. Although he was recommended for retention and
reenlistment, he was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

e. Reference (b) authorized the issuance of an RE-4
reenlistment code to Sailors who are not recommended for
advancement, retention, or reenlistment at the time of their
release from active duty. However, this does not apply to
Petitioner since he was recommended for advancement, retention,
and reenlistment. In this regard, reference (b) authorized an
RE-1 reenlistment code for a Sailor such as Petitioner.

CONCLUSION :

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.

The Board notes that Petitioner served satisfactorily and without
disciplinary infractions. The Board further notes that an RE-1
reenlistment code is appropriate for a Sailor who is recommended
for retention when separated. Accordingly, the Board believes
that an RE-1 is now the most appropriate reenlistment code for
Petitioner's situation and that the record should be corrected to
reflect that he was assigned such a code.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code on 30 June 2008 vice
the RE-4 actually assigned on that 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 purposes, with no cross
references being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c), 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 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.

 
   

=

W. DEAN Hh ERE
Executive Dire

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12304-09

    Original file (12304-09.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 his reenlistment code and nonrecommendation for reenlistment be changed. g. Reference (b) authorizes the issuance of an RE-4 reenlistment code to Sailors who have completed their enlistment and are serving in paygrade E-4 at the time of their release from active duty. That Petitioner’s naval record be further corrected to reflect that he was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05400-08

    Original file (05400-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Reference (b) authorizes an RE-1 reenlistment code for a Sailor, such as Petitioner, who was recommended for advancement and retention at the time of his/her release from active duty. The Board believes that the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned at the time of Petitioner’s release from active duty was an error and that the nonrecommendation for reenlistment at the time of her discharge was based solely on this error. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that she was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08747-07

    Original file (08747-07.rtf) 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 his reenlistment code be changed.2 The Board consisting of Messrsand reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 17 June 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Reference (b) authorizes the issuance of an RE-4 reenlistment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12438-10

    Original file (12438-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TOR Docket No: 12438-10 7 July 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD oF iii] E -¥ : : Ref: fa) 1060 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy Reserve, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his RE-4 (nonrecommendation for retention) reenlistment code...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1058 13

    Original file (NR1058 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed. As such, Petitioner was recommended for an administrative separation by reason of fraudulent entry. NDRB did not consider review of Petitioner's reenlistment code.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02668-06

    Original file (02668-06.rtf) 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 his reenlistment code be changed.2 The Board, consisting of Messrs andreviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 October 2006 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Petitioner’s separation performance evaluation for the period...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00451-05

    Original file (00451-05.doc) 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 his reenlistment code be changed. In order to receive an RE-3R reenlistment code, a Sailor must be recommended for advancement or be promotable. Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s record does not warrant the worst reenlistment code of RE-4, and that code should be changed to RE-3R.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07531-05

    Original file (07531-05.rtf) 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 his reenlistment code be changed.2. Reference (b) authorizes the issuance of an RE-4 reenlistment code to Sailors who have completed their enlistment and are serving in paygrade E-4 at the time of their release from active duty. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned an RE-i reenlistment code on 15 September...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02256-09

    Original file (02256-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON BC 20370-5100 TUR Docket No: 2256-09 25 January 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD 02y@———_RAadiazil Ret: (a) dQ U.S.C. The Board also takes into account Petitioner's record, which reflects honorable service and the lack of documentation specifying why he was not recommended for retention, advancement, or reenlistment. That...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05655-07

    Original file (05655-07.rtf) 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.2. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.3. Based on the foregoing, the Board believes that Petitioner would have been retained if it were not for her hardship, and concludes that since an RE-3H reenlistment code...