Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2448 14
Original file (NR2448 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

BUG
Docket No: 2448-14
19 September 2014

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records

TO; Secretary of the Navy
Subj: |
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
“Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 6 Dec 13 w/attachments

(2) PERS-832 memo dtd 21 Aug 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) (copy at Tab A to enclosure (1)). Specifically, he
requested that block 27 (Reentry Code) of “RE-4" (not
recommended for retention) be changed to “RE-1” (recommended for
retention). He further requested removal of two Navy Personnel
(NAVPERS) 1070/613 “Administrative Remarks” forms, one dated 6
December 2010, and the other undated (copies at Tab A to
enclosure (1)). Finally, he requested reinstatement on active
duty effective 7 December 2010.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Boyd and Tew and Ms.
Henkel, reviewed allegations of error and injustice on 17
September 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 enlisted in the Navy and entered a period of
active duty on 7 December 2005. He was referred to a general
court-martial for an indecent assault of a minor child. The
family of the alleged victim decided not to testify, so the
charge was dismissed. However, he was referred for
administrative separation due misconduct (commission of a
serious offense). He elected to have his case decided by an
administrative discharge board (ADB). The ADB found that he did
not commit misconduct and recommended retention. He was allowed
to complete his enlistment, and on 6 Decembgr 2010, he was
honorably transferred to the Navy Reserve, and assigned a
reentry code of RE-4. -Hé received two NAVPERS 1070/613's
stating to the effect that he was not to be reenlisted without
the express permission of the Navy Personnel Command, Enlisted
Performance and Separations. Branch (PERS-832). On 23 September
2013, he was honorably discharged from the Navy Reserve.

c. Enclosure (2) is an advisory opinion from PERS-832. The
advisory recommended partial relief by changing his RE-4 reentry
code, and by implication, removing the two NAVPERS 1070/613's,
because there is no documentation in his record to justify the
assignment of an RE-4 reentry code.

d. Regarding Petitioner’s request to be reinstated, he
voluntarily left active duty and was transferred to the Navy
Reserve on 6 December 2010.

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 agrees with the advisory opinion that there is no
‘evidence in his record to support the assignment of the RE-4
reentry code. Concerning his request to be reinstated, the
Board particularly notes that he left active duty voluntarily.
In view of the above, the Board directs the following limited
corrective action. .

FRRECOMMENDATION:

“a... That. Petitioner’s naval record be.corrected by
changing block 27 (Reentry Code) of his DD Form 214 from “RE-4”
to “RE-1". .

6b. That Petitioner’s record be further corrected by
removing the two NAVPERS 1070/613, one of which is dated 6
December 2010, which refer to his non-recommendation for
retention.
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 record in the future.

ad. 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.

e. 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 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.

BRIAN J. Gone

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.

  

OBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5419 14

    Original file (NR5419 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    NR5419-14 27 March 2015 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy ; REVI Ref: (a) 10 U.8.C. The Board, consisting of Meee reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 26 March 2015, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. d. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating — to the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03295-07

    Original file (03295-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In enclosure (2), PERS-311, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office with cognizance over performance evaluations, commented to the effect that the contested adverse performance evaluation report is valid, but that it does not appear in They recommended that he be asked to provide that he submit a grther action regarding Petitioner's OMPF., a signed copy for inclusion in his QMPF; this report be taken. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, notwithetanding...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04876-03

    Original file (04876-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 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 service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks”) (NAVPERS 1070/6 13) entry and the service record page 4 (NAVPERS 1070/604) entry reflecting his advancement to DC2. Davies and Moidel and Mr. Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4309 13

    Original file (NR4309 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 documents 17002525 and 17002526 (copy at Tab A), his administrative separation board case file including a no further action message COMNAVPERSCOM MILLINGTON TN 2008272 JAN 12. ‘The Board, consisting of Messrs. Chapman, Spain and Storz, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401530

    Original file (ND1401530.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600306

    Original file (ND0600306.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Inactive: None Time Lost During This Period (days): Unauthorized absence: 2 days Confinement: None Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 53 Highest Rate: GM3 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.0 (4) Behavior: 2.8 (4) OTA: 2.92 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03984-11

    Original file (03984-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SIN Docket No: 03984-11 28 April 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: ta) 10 U.S.C; L552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's naval record 1. The Board, consisting of Ms. Aldrich, Mr. Lippollis, and Mr. Butherus, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 26 April 2011 and, pursuant to its...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR933-13

    Original file (NR933-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Ms. Lapinski and Messrs. Dikeman and McBride, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 7 March 2013, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. f. In enclosure (6), PERS-32, the NPC office with cognizance over performance evaluations, commented to the effect that in light of enclosures (4) and (5), Petitioner’s performance evaluation record should be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3743-13

    Original file (NR3743-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2011 | 04854-11

    Original file (04854-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 2009 to 3 February 2010, the service record page 13 (“Administrative Remarks”) (NAVPERS 1070/613) entry dated 3 February 2010, and the Court Memorandum (NAVPERS 1070/607) dated 4 February 2010, copies of which are sn enclosure...