aT weew
mr 2 ior a
DEr AR: fyecdiN Pro. £4 EF
rE
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE toot
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
~ ~
er r
N
“TUR
Docket No: 1058-13
18 December 2014
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
aes Secretary of the Navy
Subj: _ REVIEW aan RECORD Of (i _ lay
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
(b) BUPERSINST 1900.8 (series)
DD Form 149 with attachments
Case summary
NDRB Decisional Docket NDO9-01263
Subject's naval record (excerpts)
Enel: {
(
(
(
Hm OJ) BRO be
mee ee
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. Gattis, O’Neill and Sproul,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 16
December 2014 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 reviewe@ 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. Although enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner,
it is in the interest of justice to again waive the statute of
limitations and review the application on its merits and in
-accordance with the court order to remand the case. Enclosures
(3) and (4) apply.
c. In February 2007, prior to his enlistment in the Navy,
Petitioner signed documentation which noted that he had a back
injury at the age of 14. It was determined that, in spite of
this injury, he was physically fit for training.
TIR
Docket No: 1058-13
d. On 31 August 2007, at age 21, Petitioner enlisted in the
Navy, served without disciplinary incident, and was advanced to
paygrade B-3. AL Chal Lime, he was couna To 2c phycicaliy and
medically fit for active duty training during an evaluation at
the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) . The MEPS report
did not reflect that Petitioner had a back injury at age 14.
c# In September 2007, Petitioner reported for a medical
evaluation and advised the physician that he was experiencing
back pain. In this regard, it appears that the physician obtain
the medical report from MEPS (instead of a medical report from
the Delayed Entry Program (DEP)) which did not reflect his
disclosure of his back injury at the age of 14. As such,
Petitioner was recommended for an administrative separation by
reason of fraudulent entry.
d. Subsequently, petitioner was processed for separation by
reason of fraudulent entry. The discharge authority directed
discharge under honorable conditions by reason of fraudulent
entry due failure to disclose a pre-existent back injury. On 27
October 2008, Petitioner was so discharged and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
e. On 15 April 2010, the Naval Discharge Review Board,
enclosure (4), upgraded Petitioner’s characterization of service
+o Honorable and change the narrative reason for separation to
Secretary Authority based on evidence that Petitioner was
erroneously separated due to improper documentation. NDRB
determined that Petitioner's enlistment was not fraudulent
pecause he did disclose his back injury, and that his
characterization of service was not under honorable conditions
because he served without disciplinary incident. NDRB did not
consider review of Petitioner's reenlistment code.
fF. Reference (b) authorizes the issuance of an RE-4
reenlistment code to Sailors who have served without disciplinary
incident but are not recommended for retention. In this regard,
the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code under these
circumstances means that a Sailor is not eligible for reentry
into the Navy. However, reference (b) also authorizes an RE-1
reenlistment code for 4 Sailor, such as Petitioner, who would
have been retained (recommended for retention) if not for the
misinterpretation of medical reports.
TOR
Docket No: 1058-13
CONCLUSION :
Upon review ana comupidealivn Gf ali the cv
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action. The Board initially notes the corrective action by NDRB.
The Board also notes that Petitioner served satisfactorily and
without Gisciplinary infractions, and that an RE-1 reenlistment
code is now authorized by regulatory guidance for a Sailor who
when separated is recommended for retention. Accordingly, the
Board concludes that an RE-1 is now the most appropriate
reenlistment code for Petitioner's situation and that the record
should be corrected to show that he was assigned such a code.
dence oF recora Tne
4
a alae
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
he was assigned an RE-1 reenlistment code on 27 October 2008 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, oF
completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such
entries or material he 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 ina
confidential file maintained for such purposes, with no cross
references being made a pant 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.
T. J. UREED .
Recorder
TUR
Docket No: 1058-13
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
lee ian fee fiasenrrian at
oie) of the revised Procedures Of the Lboara ror Lori Geyer we
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 723.6(¢€))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority cf reference (a), has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03536-08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TUR Docket No: 3536-08 25 February 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his uncharacterized entry level separation and fraudulent entry narrative...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101648
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600220
The subject named Marine’s (Applicant) evaluation and treatment plan had been reviewed by by Lt L_, Senior Medical Officer, Camp Geiger Branch Medical Clinic.Private G_ (Applicant) is a 20-year-old male with Lumbar Back Strain and Thoracic Back Strain.Private G_ (Applicant) is recommended for administrative separation for Lumbar Back Strain and Thoracic Back Strain which existed prior to entry (EPTE) and was not revealed on the military entrance physical examination at MEPS. The factual...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900907
Based on his time in service (20 days), lack of unusual circumstances in conduct and performance, and reason for separation, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service was appropriate.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION) and the narrative reason for...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902410
Furthermore, with respect to non-service related administrative matters, i.e. Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, civilian employment, etc., an Uncharacterized separation shall be considered the equivalent of an Honorable or General characterization.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and administrative separationprocess, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901775
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600700
Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1)Excerpts from Service Record (13 pgs)Applicant’s medical record from Bixby Medical Center (6 pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20050531 - 20050620 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 07679-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show a reason for discharge other than fraudulent enlistment. Accordingly, the Board recommends that Petitioner’s reason for separation be changed to erroneous enlistment instead of fraudulent enlistment. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR848 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference {a}, Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by changing the assigned RE-4 reenlistment code and removing any and all derogatory material referencing fraudulent entry. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. T. J.” REED Recorder S. Pursuant to the delegation of...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902467
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Decisional issues: Applicant seeks change in narrative reason for discharge and characterization of separation due to both propriety (wrong narrative reason for his circumstances) and (equity) in that he rates an Honorable characterization due to serving without misconduct. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a...