DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

RDZ:ecb
Docket No. 09306-10
10 January 2011

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

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD oF FORMER Sy

Ref: (ay 10° U.5.C. 1552

 

 

 

 

Enel: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments

(2) PLT Leader ltr dtd 1JUL08

(3) Subject’s ltr dtd 4AUG08

(4) BN CO ltr dtd 60CT08

(5) HOMC Code MMER memo dtd 18AUG10 w/attachments
(6) Subject's. naval record

 

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former
enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this
Board requesting that his reenlistment code (RE-4) be changed.

 

2. The Board, consisting of Messes Guill, Henkel and Siler, reviewed
Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 5 January 2011
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 Marine Corps on 20 September 2004

for a term of four years. He had no disciplinary infractions until
3 January 2006 when he received nonjudicial punishment for being in
possession of a camera that had been reported as stolen. Petitioner
was reduced to private first class (E-2), ordered to forfeit $713
of pay per month for two months and serve 45 days of extra duty. Upon
review the second month of forfeiture of pay as well as the 45 days
of extra duty was suspended. Unfortunately in April 2006 Petitioner
wrongfully withheld money belonging to another Marine for which he
was tried and convicted of wrongful appropriation by special
court-martial (SPCM). As a result he was reduced to private (E-1)
ordered to forfeit $849 of pay per month for three months and served
45 days of confinement.

d. Following hig’ release from confinement Petitioner was
transferred to Iraq where he served as a member of an artillery unit.
He successfully completed his Iraq combat tour earning a promotion
to private first class (E-2) and a meritorious promotion to lance
corporal (E-3). Following his return to the United States he earned
a promotion to corporal (E-4).

e. Based upon his superior performance of duty in Iraq and
subsequent stateside service Petitioner requested that he be allowed
to reenlist. Enclosure (2) is a letter dated 1 July 2008 froma
Marine Corps first lieutenant under whom Petitioner had served in
both combat and garrison duty strongly recommending that Petitioner
be given an opportunity to reenlist. In August 2008 Petitioner
formally requested reenlistment relying on his strong and superior
performance of duty in Iraq and subsequent stateside assignment.
See enclosure (3). Petitioner’s battalion commander favorably
endorsed his request and “recommended with confidence” that
Petitioner be reenlisted for four years. See enclosure (4).
Despite these favorable recommendations the regimental commander
rejected Petitioner’s request and Petitioner was assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.

f. Enclosure (5) is an advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine
Corps stating that based upon Petitioner's disciplinary infractions
in 2006 he was correctly assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record and
notwithstanding the unfavorable recommendation of enclosure (5) the
Board concludes that the interest of justice would be better served
by changing Petitioner’s RE-4 reenlistment code to the less
restrictive RE-3C based on his superior performance in both Iraq and
stateside following his disciplinary infractions which occurred in
2006. With an RE-3C code Petitioner can petition the Commandant of
the Marine Corps for a waiver and reenlistment. However because of
Petitioner’s documented disciplinary problems the Board can find no
error or injustice in withholding an RE-1 reenlistment code.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that upon
being discharged on 7 November 2008 he was assigned an RE-3C
reenlistment code.

b. That no further relief be granted.

c. That a copy of 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.

Quant \ Aroogr
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN BRIAN a. GEORGE
Recorder Acting Recorder

5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review

and action.
W. DEAN PFEL

Executive Di

   

 

Review d approyad:
Yok Ar"

41000 Navy Pentagon, Rm
Washington, DC 20350-1000
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN
Docket No. 11470-10
16 February 2011

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on

14 February 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were
reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with
all material submitted in support thereof, his naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board considered
the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters United States Marine
Corps (HQMC) memo 1070 JAM3 of 24 Jan 11, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record,
the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of
the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board
reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence

or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this
regard, it is also important to keep in mind that a presumption of
regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when
applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is
on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material

error or injustice.

Sincerely,

~~

ella

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di

Enclosure