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

TRG
	Docket No: 2760-04
 	13 May 2004

From:	Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:	Secretary of the Navy
	
	Subj : REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 

Ref:	(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

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

1.	Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member in the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show that
a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 27 December 1999.

2.	The Board, consisting of Mr. , Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 11 May 2004 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.	Although it appears that Petitioner’s application was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits.

c.	Petitioner initially in enlisted in the Navy on 27 May 1986 and served continuously on active duty for over 13 years.  In the performance evaluation for the period ending 15 March 1999, the individual trait average (ITA) was 3.58 and she was recommended for promotion and retention in the Navy.

d.	On 22 September 1999 Petitioner requested discharge due to her family situation. Seven day later, she indicated that she could not comply with the terms of the Family Care Plan Certificate. Since she was not available for watches, deployment or other military duties outside of normal working hours, she was processed for an administrative discharge by reason of parenthood. In connection with this processing, she elected to waive the right to have her case heard by an administrative discharge board. After review, the discharge authority directed discharge no later than 30 December 1999. In the performance evaluation for the period ending 18 December 1999 the ITA was 3.71 and she was recommended for promotion and retention in the Navy. She was honorably discharged on 27 December 1999, having completed 13 years, 7 months and 1 day of active duty. At that time, she was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

e.	In her application, Petitioner states that she had three children under 10, one of which had behavior problems; her active duty husband had received orders; and she was required to stand a rotating watch. She desires a change in the reenlistment code so that she can reenlist in the Naval Reserve to finish her career.

e.	Regulations require the assignment of an RE-3B or an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of parenthood. The RE-3B code means that the individual is recommended for reenlistment except for the disqualifying problem of parenthood. Such a code may be waived if the condition no longer exists. An RE-4 reenlistment code is assigned when an individual is not eligible for reenlistment.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. The Board is aware that Petitioner had over 13 years of excellent service at the time of her discharge. Since she was recommended for retention, except for the personal problems that led to the discharge, the Board concludes that the assignment of an RE-3B reenlistment code is more appropriate than the RE-4 code actually assigned. The RE-3B code will alert recruiters of the problems that led to discharge, but will not preclude consideration for reenlistment.

The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reasons for the change in the reenlistment code.

RECONMENDAT ION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 27 December 1999 she was assigned an RE-3B reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.

2

b.	That 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.

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.

									W. DEAN PFEIFFER
									Executive Director

3