DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JSR
Docket No: NR10930-14
a fT | “
a rapt tt “=
From: Chairman, Boara for Correction of Naval Records
To. Secretary of the Navy
Ref: (a) Title 10 1.6.0. LSS2
DD Form 149 dtd 7 Aug 14 w/attachments
HOMC MIQ e-mail dtd 21 Jan 15
)
)
) HOMC MIQ memo dtd 9 Mar 15
) Subject’s 1tr dtd 13 Apr 15 w/enclosures
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 revoking his
reenlistment code of RE-30 (refused oraers assigned without
sufficient obligated service remaining) . He also impliedly
requested removing the service record page il (“administrative
ries 070" 1) €@ 30 May 2014 and his rebuttal dated
7
y
hd
in (D ¢
ai
4 a Re veviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 16 April 2015, 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 which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Enclosure (1) was Filed in a timely manner.
c. The contested entry states Petitioner has been assigned
reenlistment eligibility code RE-30 because he would not
reenlist/extend to comply with PCS (permanent change of station)
orders. He contends the entry should be removed because he had
been experiencing a hazardous degenerative medical issue (he
received an anterior cervical dissectomy and fusion with partial
corpectomy and had three vertebrae removed and replaced from his
neck); and relocating to fulfill orders when he had 15 months on
contract “would have cost the Marine Corps time, money, and cost
the arriving unit a qualified aircrewman.”
d. Enclosure (2) reflects that the Marine Corps Total Force
System currently shows Petitioner's reenlistment code as RE-1A
(recommended and eligible for reenlistment) .
e. In enclosure (3), the Headquarters Marine Corps office
with cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner’s case has
commented to the effect his request should be denied, as he has
not met his burden to demonstrate that the contested entry is
unjust or in error.
f. In enclosure (4), Petitioner contends that his having
been assigned the RE-1A reenlistment code justifies removing the
contested entry concerning the RE-30 code.
g. The page 11 on which the contested entry appears also
includes uncontested entries.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
and notwithstanding enclosure (3), the Board finds an injustice
warranting removal of the page 11 entry at issue. In this
connection, the Board concludes that since Petitioner no longer
has the RE-30 reenlistment code, the entry no longer serves a
legitimate purpose, but is merely unfairly punitive. In view of
the foregoing, the Board recommends the following corrective
action.
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing
the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”)
entry dated 30 May 2014 and his rebuttal dated 25 June 2014.
This is to be accomplished by reconstructing the page 11 on
which the entry appears and physically removing the rebuttal, or
completely obliterating the entry and rebuttal so they cannot be
read, rather than merely lining through them.
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 be added to the record in the future.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing 1s a true and
complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Reviewed and approved:
“RTL. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Washington, DC 20350-1000
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5272 14
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 20 November 2014, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. e. In enclosure (6), MIQ again commented to the effect that the contested entry dated 6 January 2012 should stand, but further commented to the effect that Petitioner’s request to remove the entries dated 14 December...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5809 13
MIQ did not address the entries dated 23 May or 17 July 2012. c. In enclosure (3), JAM, the HOMC Judge Advocate Division, Military Justice Branch commented to the effect that all the entries at issue should be removed, because the entries dated 23 January, 23 May and 17 July 2012 were improperly backdated, and the entries dated 20 January and 23 March 2012 were issued after Petitioner should have been promoted on 1 May 2011. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing - the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11866 14
c. The page 11 entry at issue counsels Petitioner for “Violation of the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] Article 92 by involving yourself in an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of another service member.” d. Enclosure (3) shows that the PERB basis for removing the contested fitness report included a finding that the page 11 entry in question, which was cited in the fitness report, “was not substantiated.” e. In the advisory opinion at enclosure (4), the HOMC office with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3204 13
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 removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070”) entry dated 24 September 2007 (copy at Tab A). d. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps office with cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's case has commented to the effect his request should...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3524 13
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 August 2014, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. g. In enclosure (8), MIQ commented to the effect that in light of enclosure (7), the contested BCP assignment and page 11 entries should be removed. of enclosures (5) and (8), the Board finds the existence of an error...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8518-13
2, The Board, consisting of Messrs. Boyd, Chapman and Spain, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 20 Maxch 2014, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. c. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR0593 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 to 29% April 2011 (copy at Tab A), removing the service record page 1i (*Administrative Remarks (1070)") entries dated 1 December 2010 and 10 May 2011 (copies at Tab 3) and changing his reenlistment code from RE-3C (Commandant of the Marine Corps...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4745 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7O! c. Enclosure (2), the report of the HOMC PERB in Petitioner's case, shows that the PERB directed removing the contested fitness report for 1 January to 27 April 2008, but commented to the effect that the five remaining reports at issue should stand. In enclosure (5), Petitioner provided new evidence in support of his new request to remove the page 11 entries dated 11 June 2010 and 12 May 2011. g. In enclosures (6) and (7),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3743-13
Finally, by implication, he also requested removing the page 11 entry dated 3 August 2011. The Board, consisting of Ms. Lapinski and Messrs. Gorenflo and Hicks, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 13 March 2014, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11(b) (“Administrative Remarks...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7811 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to 4s Petitioner, filed epclosure (1) with this Boaré requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the service record page ll (“Administrative Remarks (1070}") entry dated 26 March 2014 lcopy at Tab A). 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...