DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
E3OARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
				             2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 

								             SJN
Docket No: 04525-05
10 May 2006

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

Subj:	REVIEW OF NAVAL OF 

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

End:	(1) DD Form 149 with att C ents
  (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 a change in his reenlistment code.

2. The Board, consisting of Mr	Ms. and Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 May 2006 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 enlisted in the Navy on 26 August 2003 at age 18. Additionally, Petitioner was guaranteed a Legalman (LN) Program “A” school along with an enlistment bonus.

d.	Petitioner’s evaluation for the period 12 November 2003 to 15 July 2004 was excellent, with high marks and favorable comments. Additionally, he was one of only four rated to receive the highest advancement recommendation of “early promote.” During this period Petitioner was advanced in rate to seaman (E3) and received a letter of commendation.
e.	At some point, Petitioner states that he was informed by his commanding officer (CO) that the legalman “A” school would not be accepting him. Petitioner and his CO discussed the possibility of discharge in attempt to explore all available options that were available.

f.	According to MILPERSMAN 1910-132, a member may be separated by reason of defective enlistment. Prior to discharge, members should be advised of alternate programs for which the member is qualified and offered every encouragement to remain in the service. Retention should be directed only upon full concurrence of the member.

g.	Petitioner stated that when the issue of a new rate came up, he requested cryptologic technician, communication (CTO). However, it was not until much later he found out that the only similar rating available was cryptologic technician, repair (CTR), which he did not want. Petitioner therefore reluctantly requested separation.

h.	On 25 April 2005, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of defective enlistment. Petitioner waived his rights to consult counsel or submit a statement on his behalf. On 19 May 2005 he was honorably discharged and assigned a RE-4 reenlistment code.

i.	Petitioner’s separation evaluation, covering the period from 16 July 2004 to 19 May 2005, states that he lacked the military discipline to live up to the Navy’s core values of honor, courage and commitment. His CO further states that Petitioner exercised bad judgment and a lack of courage by lying to his chain of command and his deliberate omission of pertinent facts to senior officials brought discredit to the command.

j.	With his application, Petitioner states that the command failed to process his paperwork and when corrections were attempted, he was given “the run around”, and that the only reason he believes he is not being recommended for retention is because of the conflict between him and his chain of command over his request for separation.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action based on Petitioner’s overall record of military service, including over 21 months of service with no disciplinary infractions, and the excellent evaluations he received for the 2003-2004 timeframe. The Board also believes that the separation evaluation resulted from the command’s frustration with Petitioner’s unwillingness to accept another rating than from his poor performance. In this regard, the Board notes that no disciplinary action was taken despite the allegation of dishonesty. Based on the foregoing, and considering the Navy’s failure to live up to the enlistment guarantee for LN “A” school, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is served by the most restrictive reenlistment code of RE-4, and assignment of the RE-i code more accurately reflects the quality of his service.

RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 19 May 2005 Petitioner was issued a RE-i reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually issued 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 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.

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director