DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100					      
TRG
											Docket No: 4516-04
											9 August 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 commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed.
	
	2. 	The Board, consisting of Mr. and Ms. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error an			injustice on 27 July 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 Bo rd, having reviewed Al the facts of record pertaining to Petitioners allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:

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 enlisted in the Navy on 28 January 1983 at age 17. He satisfactorily completed initial training and on 10 June 1983 he reported aboard the USS AMERICA (CV 66). He then served until 5 February 1985, with only a one day period of unauthorized absence for which no disciplinary action was taken.

d.	During the period from 5 May 1985 to 21 November 1985 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment on four occasions. His offenses were two periods of unauthorized absence totaling about 10 days, missing ship’s movement, missing restriction musters on nine occasions, and two instances of disobedience. The NJP’s resulted in this reduction in rate from airman (AN; E

3) to airman recruit (AR; E-1).

e.	Petitioner then served without any further disciplinary infractions and was advanced in rate to airman apprentice (AA; E
2). He was released from active duty on 6 February 1987 with his service characterized as honorable. At that time he was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. He was subsequently issued an honorable discharge at the end of his military obligation.

f.	Petitioner’s final performance evaluation is not filed in the record. However, since he was advanced in rate during this period. It appears that he was serving in a satisfactory manner. However, regulations require that an individual meet certain high year tenure (HYT) requirements in order to be recommended for reenlistment. Those regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals who are serving in pay grade E-2 following an extended period of active duty.

f.	Petitioner states that he has some personal problems during 1985 but “got his act together” and earned an honorable discharge. He has submitted evidence showing that he has been granted a waiver and allowed to enlist in the Vermont Army National Guard. The date of enlistment is unknown, however, it appears to be sometime in 2001. Since then he has completed several training courses and has been promoted to specialist (E4) . He has submitted references from senior noncommissioned officers that attest to his excellent performance of duty. He desires a change in the reenlistment code so that he can enlist in the Regular Army.

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 although he had four nonjudicial punishments in 1985, the remainder of his service was satisfactory. Since he is now serving well in the National Guard and desires to enlist in the Regular Army, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is now served by the RE-4 reenlistment code and it should be changed to an RE-i reenlistment code as an exception to policy that would normally require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code.

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 reason for the change in the reenlistment code.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 to show that on 6 February 1987 he was assigned an RE-i reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.

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.