DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 11022-10
28 October 2010
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Tor Secretary of the Navy
subs REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 1¢0 (9
Ref: (a) 10 U.8.€. 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 a change in his RE-4 (not recommended for
retention) reenlistment code.
2. The Board, consisting of vr, vr. ae... qu
@lmmmmy reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 26 October 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. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of
active duty on 16 October 2005. He served without incident for
four years, was advanced to paygrade E-3, and received a Good
Conduct Medal. Based on information currently contained in his
record, during the period from 16 July 2008 to 15 August 2009, he
received two enlisted performance evaluations recommending him
for retention and promotion with an overall trait average of
3.33. On 15 August 2009, he was honorably released from active
duty and transferred to the Navy Reserve at the completion of his
required obligated service. At that time, he was recommended for
promotion by his commanding officer (CO), but assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
c. Reference (b) sets forth the Department of the Navy’s
policy, standards, and procedures for separating enlisted service
members at the expiration of their obligated service.
Professional growth criteria must be met before an individual may
reenlist. The instruction states, in part, as follows:
To satisfy professional growtpy @piter#a for the first
reenlistment... the member must be: (1) serving as a petty
officer or, (2) serving in paygrade E-3 having passed an
examination for advancement to paygrade E-4 and be currently
recommended for advancement, or (3) have formerly been a
petty officer in current enlistment and be currently
recommended for advancement to paygrade E-4. Failure to
meet the professional growth criteria may result in denial
of further extensions or reenlistment...
An individual separated in paygrade E-3 who fails to meet the
above criteria may receive a RE-3R reenlistment code if he/she is
recommended for advancement to paygrade E-4 at the time of
separation. If not, the individual must be assigned a RE-4
reenlistment code.
* * e. te woes Ft
* d, A review of available records does not indicate if
Petitioner had taken and/or passed an advancement exam. However,
he was recommended for promotion on his separation evaluation.
e. With his application, Petitioner contends that he was
honorably separated, had no misconduct, was not a below average
sailor, and received a Good Conduct Medal. Further, he states
that at that time, his rating was overmanned and decided to get
out and join the Marine Corps. He could have been assigned a
code of RE-3R, meaning that he failed to meet professional growth
eriteria.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
In this regard, the Board notes Petitioner's overall record of
military service, including four years of active duty with no
disciplinary action, above average performance marks, and a Good
Conduct Medal. Further, he was recommended for promotion at the
time of his separation. The Board therefore concludes that no
useful purpose is served by assignment of the most restrictive
reenlistment code of RE-4, and assignment of the RE-3R code more
accurately reflects the quality of his service.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
on 15 August 2009, he was issued an RE-3R reenlistment code vice
the RE-4 reenlistment code actually issued on that date.
b. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in
Petitioner’s naval record.
c. That upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be
informed that Petitioner’s application was received on 6 October
20:10 ;
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 vein | eonys
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.
LD Saas
DEAN PFE
ae Dir
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4679 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change in his RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code, which was issued on 13 April 2013. At that time he was recommended for promotion and continued service in the Navy Reserve, and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. Such a code may also be assigned if the commanding officer does not recommend the individual for reenlistment.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00451-05
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 | CY2007 | 08516-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SIN Docket No: 08516-07 17 September 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF él 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03581-02
growth criteria, officer third class, be serving in examination for advancement to recommended for advancement, officer in the current enlistment and be currently recommended for advancement to CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable It appears to the Board that Petitioner was issued an action. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09446-06
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change in his reenlistment code.2. The Board, consisting of Mr.reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of errbr and injustice on 2 May 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. At that time he was assigned and RE-4 reenlistment code.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00263-01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Naval Reserve, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by changing the reenlistment code. because he had completed his three years of active duty, there was no time to take an advancement examination for The Board paygrade E-4. (e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (2 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 723.6(e)) and having...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01181-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 18 June 1993, you were honorably discharged from active duty while serving in pay grade E-3.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06569-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 18 April 2004, you were honorably discharged from active duty while serving in pay grade E-3, and assigned a reentry code of RE-3R.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00171 12
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. An individual separated in paygrade E-3 who fails to meet the above criteria may receive an RE-3R reenlistment code if he/she is recommended for advancement to paygrade E-4 at the time of separation. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03731-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...