DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 100i
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
SIN =
Docket No: 3314-14
18 September 2014
*,
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552 °
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments
{2} Case Summary
(3) Subject's naval record
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 discharge of 8 November 2013,
_be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), and
that he be reinstated in the Individual Ready Reserve.
2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Dixit, Mr. Spain, and
Mr. Clemmons, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 16 September 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, and
advisory opinion from the Commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command.
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 Che Department of the Navy.
b. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy and began a period of
active duty on 29 September 1995. During his service, he was
advanced to petty officer second class (SH2; paygrade E-5). On
27 March 2000, he. received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
assault. He had no further disciplinary action and was honorably
discharged on 28 September 2009 after 14 years of service. At
that time, he was recommended for reenlistment. However, he was
assigned an RE-6 (Ineligible or denied.reenlistment due to High
Year Tenure) reentry code. Although his record is incomplete, it
appears he joined the Navy Reserve, and served without incident
for over four years until 8 January 2013, when administrative
discharge action was initiated by reason of physical fitness
assessment (PFA) failure. He elected to consult with counsel,
and on 27 January 2013, he requested to have his case heard by an
administrative discharge board (ADB). However, it appears that
an ADB was. not convened, and his commanding officer (CO} allowed
him to remain in the Individual Ready Reserve until the
completion of his obligated service. He was honorably discharged
on 8 November 2013. At that time, he was not recommended for
reenlistment.
c. With his application, Petitioner states, in part, that
his command did not convene an ADB, and if given the opportunity,
he would have been able to explain. that he did not fail any
PFA‘ s He believes he should have been allowed to complete his
obligation in the Individual Ready Reserve in order to earn the
opportunity to retire.
ad. Although Petitioner was notified that he was being
administratively separated from the Navy Reserve due to PFA
failures, it is not a right to appear before an ADB, and his CO
had the authority to allow him to serve until the end of his
obligated service.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of ail the evidence of record,
especially the fact that he was notified and elected to appear
before an ADB, and has over 18 years of service, the Board
concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action in
the form of relief. The Board particularly notes that since he
had over 18 years of service, he was in the sanctuary zone and
should have been allowed to complete 20 years of service and
retire. After careful and conscientious consideration of the
entire record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s discharge of
8 November 2013, should be removed from his OMPF, and that he be
reinstated in the Individual Ready Reserve in order to allow him
the opportunity to earn the time needed for retirement.
RECOMMENDATION ;
a. That Petitioner's administrative discharge of 8 November
2013, and all other documentation related to it, be removed from
his OMPF'. ; .
'b,. That Petitioner be reinstated in the Individual Ready
Reserve to allow him to complete 20 years of service and retire.
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.
dad. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner’s naval record be returned to this 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.
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. GEORGE
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.
~
ROBERT J. O’NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3533 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490 BAN Docket No.NRO3533-14 8 May 2014 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: A a Ref: (a} Title 10 U.S.C. The Board determined the following factors militated in favor of relief: That Petitioner did pass the PFA before the limiting date, as required, that the CO endorsed Petitioner's selection for advancement by “frocking” him...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09276-07
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a member of the Navy Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed and/or that she be reinstated to active duty to qualify for retirement. Given the recommendation for an RE-3T in one of the advisory opinions and considering her excellent performance of duty, the Board concludes that the reenlistment code should now be changed to RE-3T vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7444 13
2, 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. d. In enclosure (5), PERS-81 stated that “an advisory to the petitioner’s request cannot be completed.” e. In enclosure (6), PERS-803, the NPC office with cognizance over enlisted advancements, has commented to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06030-09
06030-09 n. On 30 May 2008, two days after failing the BCA portion of the PFA, Petitioner received another medical waiver. On 5 June 2009, Petitioner filed enclosure 1 with this Board requesting that the applicable naval record be corrected to show advancement to E-6/AT1 from the March 2008, Navy-wide advancement exam, Cycle 199. w. By enclosure 3, Petitioner's command has commented that no relief is warranted for the following reasons: Petitioner was not within BCA standards and did not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00183-08
The Board, consisting of Ms. Humphrey and Messrs. W. Hicks and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 14 August 2008, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. e. In enclosure (3), Petitioner provided a confirmation of pregnancy dated 19 November 2007. f. In enclosure (4), OPNAV N135 again recommended denying Petitioner's request, as the pregnancy...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03461-05
03461-05 4 April 2006 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD R Ref: (a) 10 U.S~C. 3 (1) Block 20: Change from “MINS” to “PINS.” (2) Block 43 *36: Change to read “- [PFA] Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 P/NS (2nd failure) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, the requested correction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02330-07
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07180-05
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marines Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change in his reenlistment code.2 The Board, consisting of Mr Mr and Mr reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 23 February 2006 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. The reenlistment code of RE-4 means that Petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03330-07
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 taking unspecified corrective action regarding the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 November 2005 to 15 November 2006, a copy of which is at Tab A. d. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), PERS-311, the Navy Personnel Command office with cognizance over performance...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08777-08
In enclosures (2) and (3), OPNAV N135 and the NPC office with cognizance over fitness reports, respectively, commented to the effect Petitioner's requests should be denied. e. In enclosure (6), the NPC office with cognizance over fitness reports noted that Petitioner's reporting senior had declined to submit a supplemental report, notwithstanding the PRIMS correction. In enclosure (9), that office noted the fitness report corrections recommended in enclosure (6} and stated hig SSB request...