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. 1552
_{b) OPNAVINST 1160.5 (series)
(c) BUPERSINST 1900.8 (series)
Encl: ( DD Form 149 with attachments
1)
(2) Case summary
(3) Subject's naval record (excerpts)
1. 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 be changed.
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Aldrich, Mr. Rothlein, and Mr.
Silberman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 6 July 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. [In
addition, the Board considered the Naval Discharge Review Board
(NDRB) decisional document number NDO9-02189 dated 26 August
2010.
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 Reserve on 22 April 2003
at age 33. He served without disciplinary incident and was
advanced to paygrade E-4.
d. Petitioner's record reflects that he satisfactorily
participated in drills during the period from March 2003 to July
2004. However, in August 2004, he failed to meet the Navy's
physical fitness assessment (PFA) standards, and as such, he
could not participate in training. In this regard, he was
subsequently returned to his reserve unit. The record further
reflects that his reserve unit, on multiple occasions, did not
allow him to participate in drills and was refused participation
without explanation.
e. As a result of the foregoing, Petitioner was processed
for an administrative separation. On 18 January 2005 he was
issued a'general discharge by reason of unsatisfactory
participation in the Ready Reserve. At that time he was assigned
an RE-4 reenlistment code.
f. In August 2010 the NDRB upgraded the characterization of
Petitioner's service to “honorable” and changed the narrative
reason for separation to “secretarial authority” because of an
impropriety in the discharge action. The NDRB stated, in part,
that although the discharge was proper, it was not equitable.
g. Reference (b) authorizes the issuance of an RE-4
reenlistment code to Sailors who have been separated due to
unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve. The
assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code under these circumstances
means that a Sailor is not eligible for reenlistment due to
nonrecommendation of retention, advancement, and reenlistment.
However, reference (c) authorizes an RE-1 reenlistment code for a
Sailor, such as Petitioner, who was honorably discharged by
reason of secretarial authority.
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. He was improperly processed for
separation and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code based solely on
his nonparticipation in the Ready Reserve.
The Board substantially concurs with the decision of the NDRB and
believes that Petitioner’s nonparticipation in the Ready Reserve
was not of his own doing and therefore he should not suffer the
consequences of a restrictive reenlistment code. The Board notes
that an RE-1 reenlistment code is now authorized by regulatory
guidance for a Sailor who is separated by secretarial authority
and believes that such a code is now the most appropriate
reenlistment code for his situation. In this regard, the record
should be corrected to show that he was assigned an RE-1
reenlistment code.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code on 18 January 2005 vice
the RE-4 reenlistment code 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.
ec. 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 ina
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.
CA aan Ao
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN BRIAN J. NGEORGE
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5313 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2015. 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of your failure to satisfactorily...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01609-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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. At that time the discharge authority stated that you were not recommended for reenlistment because of your failure to maintain at least an 85%...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12304-09
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 | CY2014 | NR336 14
after careful and conscientious consideration of che entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of your failure to satisfactorily participate in the Marine Corps Reserve and nonrecommendation for retention or reenlistment. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...
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 | CY2009 | 13164-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500079
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02256-09
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 | CY2006 | 01678-06
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.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, th Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 9 May 1996 at age 17 and then earned three consecutive...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01703-09
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. Reference (c), however, authorizes the issuance of an RE-3F reenlistment code for a Sailor, such as Petitioner, who was not recommended for retention due to PFA failures. That Petitioner's naval record be further corrected to show that she was recommended for reenlistment on 8 April 1996 vice not being...