DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

FC
Docket No. 06318-03
25 August 2003

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
	(b)	MILPERSMAN 1910-112
	(c)	MILPERSMAN 1910-110

End:	(1) Case Summary
(2)	Subject’s naval record

1.	Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show
a more favorable type of reenlistment code and change of reason for separation authority.

2.	The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on, 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.	Petitioner’s request was filed in a timely manner

c.	Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 19 September 1999 at age 19. She served without incident until 27 January 2000, when she requested a hardship discharge. On 28 January 2000, the commanding officer approved her request, and on 2 February 2000, she was honorably discharged and assigned a reenlistment code of
RE-4.

d.	Petitioner’s DD Form 214 shows that she was separated in accordance with reference (b). Reference (b) authorizes separation by reason of convenience of the government due to pregnancy. Reference (c) is the governing article for separation by reason of hardship.

e.	A review of her service record indicates that Petitioner received no performance marks and had no disciplinary record during her period of active service.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. Petitioner was correctly discharged by reason of a hardship discharge. However, she was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4 without any documented disciplinary action or performance evaluations. Further, reference (b) is the correct authority for hardship discharges. Therefore, the Board believes that the less stigmatizing reenlistment code of RE-3H is warranted, and the separation authority should be reference (c) and not reference (b).

RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 2 February 2002 she was separated under the authority of MILPERSMAN 1910-110 and received a reenlistment code of RE-3H instead of the reason for separation and reenlistment code actually assigned on that date.

b.	That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in 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. GOLDSMITH
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 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.