DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS a
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
_ ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BuG
Docket No: 2452-13
17 April 2014
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
gubj : 2
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) Title 10-U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 24 Jan 11 w/attachments
(2) CNP memo dtd 7 Feb 14
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written
application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in
effect, that his naval record be corrected by changing his
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form
214). Specifically, he requested that block 26 (Separation
Code} “HHI” (Unsuitability); block 27 (Reentry Code) “RE-4” (Not
Recommended for Retention), and block 28 (Narrative Reason for
Separation) “Unsatisfactory Performance” be changed.
2. The Board, consisting of Mses. Davis and Henkel and Mr.
Hedrick, reviewed allegations of error and injustice on 15 April
2014, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the.
Limited 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 which were available under existing law
and regulations within -the—Department-of the _Navy-
b. Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 27 March 2006 after .
more than 12 years of prior honorable service. He served
without disciplinary action and advanced to’ pay grade E-5. On 9
October 2008, his security clearance was revoked due to criminal
arrests in the 1990’s and a pattern of financial
irresponsibility demonstrative of poor judgment and
unreliability from the year of 2000. He was unable to convert
to another rating. On 11 December 2009, he was honorably.
discharged due to unsatisfactory performance, and assigned an
RE-4 reentry code.
7 c. Enclosure (2) is an advisory opinion from the Chief of
Naval Personnel. The advisory recommended partial relief
because the arrests and financial irresponsibility occurred
approximately 10 years before his security clearance was a
revoked. The advisory recommended changing ‘his block 26
separation code to “JBK” (Completion of Required Active
Service), and block 28 narrative reason for separation. to
“Completion of Required Active Service”. The advisory
recommended that his RE-4 reentry code not be changed in light
of the loss of his security clearance.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board finds the
existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief.
The Board finds that Petitioner's arrest record and financial
irresponsibility was relatively far removed from the time his
security clearance was revoked. The Board. agrees with the
advisory opinion that changing his separation code and narrative
reason for separation provide sufficient relief. Finally, the
Roard finds that the assignment of an RE-4 reentry code was
appropriate due to the revocation of his security clearance. In
view of the above, the Board directs the following limited .
corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by ,
‘changing block 26 (Separation Code) of his DD Form 214 from
“HHI” to “JBK”, and that biock 28 (Narrative Reason for
Separation) be changed from “Unsatisfactory Performance” to
- *Completion of Required Active Service”.
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 purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
d. That no further relief be granted.
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<%s 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.
BRIAN J. CHORTE
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Recorder
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 Regulations, 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.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 051
SECCEN followed up in late 2006 to indicate that no improvement had been made to eliminate the sizable debt that the applicant had created over a significant amount of time. Additionally, the command formally counseled applicant on the need to change their rating for retention in the service. Discharge: No change | 25.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1360 13
Enclosure (2) h. On 23 August 2004 Petitioner was so discharged. wa The majority of the Board also relies upon the advisory opinion from the Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division which recommended an upgrade to Petitioner's reenlistment code; removal of all adverse material in Petitioner's Official Military Personnel File pertaining to administrative separation ror misconduct due to drug abuse; and that all associated relief be granted. The minority notes that Petitioner was found guilty...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05518-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 February 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100077
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks a change in his RE code. Representation: none By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1501035
The NDRB conducted an exhaustive review of the Applicant’s service record and found that he was both properly and equitably separated in accordance with regulations concerning unsatisfactory performance. ” 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. There is no requirement or law that grants...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04732-01
b. Petitioner's application to the Board was filed in a timely manner. Petitioner's naval record. This code will allow reenlistment if he is otherwise and the support he has received He concludes that the best In this regard, he The minority also concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reason for the change in the reason for discharge and reenlistment code.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010756
The Chief, Investigations Division (ID), United States Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility, notified the applicant on 8 January 2002, of his intent to revoke his security clearance. The rater stated once he was assigned and mobilized on 8 December 2001, the USJFCOM initiated the security management process and that the United States Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility announced their intent to revoke his security clearance on 8 January 2002. His records show...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130003793
On 6 August 2012, the separation authority, after careful consideration of the applicant's separation packet and recommendation of the chain of command, denied the applicant's request for conditional waiver of his separation. An administrative separation board was appointed to determine whether the applicant should be separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13. On 24 September 2012, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10232-06
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner applied to this Board requesting his naval record be corrected by changing the reentry code and reason for discharge he was assigned on 21 March 2006.2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Prevatt and Messrs. Blanchard and Bourgeois, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 November 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8651 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the RE-4 (non-recommendation for retention) for reentry code issued on 9 August 2013 be upgraded. The Board, consisting of Mr. Lippolis, Mr. Rothlein, and Ms. Montgomery, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 4 June 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action...