DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
		TJR
	Docket No: 2853-03
	15 August 2003

From:	Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:	Secretary of the Navy

Subj:	NAVAL RECORD 

Ref:	(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
(b) OPNAVINST 1160.5C

End:	(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, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed.

2.	The Board, consisting of Messrs. and reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 12 August 2003 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 available under existing law and _ regulations within the Department of the Navy.	

b.	Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.

c.	Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 21 June 1996 after five years of prior honorable service and continued to serve without disciplinary incident.

d.	In the enlisted performance evaluation for the period from 16 March 2000 to 15 March 2001, Petitioner received an adverse performance evaluation mark of 1.0 in the category of professional knowledge as a result of his failure to obtain the enlisted surface warfare specialist (ESWS) qualifications for advancement. However, the reporting senior stated that Petitioner was an exemplary leader who made a positive impact, and that with further qualifications would be recommended for advancement. At that time Petitioner was recommended for retention.

e.	In the next enlisted performance evaluation, for the period from 16 March 2001 to 15 March 2002, Petitioner received adverse performance evaluation marks of 1.0 in the categories of professional knowledge and personal job accomplishment! Initiative. These marks were also the result of Petitioner’s failure to obtain ESWS qualifications. At that time the reporting senior stated that although Petitioner’s performance had been superb, his lack of motivation to earn ESWS qualifications prevented him from moving up in the ranks. Nevertheless, Petitioner was again recommended for retention.

f.	On 20 September 2002 Petitioner was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve at the expiration of his enlistment. At that time he was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

g.	In accordance with the criteria outlined in reference (b), an RE-4 reenlistment code is assigned to an individual serving in paygrade E-5 who has received two or more marks below 3.0 in the same trait during the 36 months immediately preceding reenlistment or expiration of active obligated service (EAOS).

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action.

The Board notes that Petitioner served without disciplinary infractions. The Board also notes the reenlistment criteria outlined in reference (b) which state that an RE-4 reenlistment code will be assigned to an individual serving in paygrade E-5 and above who has received a performance mark below 3.0 in any trait during the 36 months immediately preceding reenlistment or EAOS. However, the Board believes that the sole reason __Petitiorer~ecetved advers~zpe~formance marks in the categories	__ of professional knowledge and personal job accomplishment! initiative was his failure to obtain his ESWS qualifications for advancement. Despite these adverse marks, Petitioner was recommended for retention on both of his last two performance evaluations. Furthermore, both reporting seniors stated that Petitioner was an exemplary leader with superb performance, and that the only reason he was not recommended for advancement was because of his failure to obtain his ESWS qualifications. The Board concedes that the RE-4 reenlistment code was correctly assigned, but after taking the foregoing facts into

2
consideration, the Board believes that an RE-I reenlistment code is the more appropriate code for Petitioner’s situation.

In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action.

RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 20 September 2003 he was assigned an RE-I reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on that same date.

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 purposes, with no cross references being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.

4. 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.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN	ALAN E.
Recorder	Acting 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.

3