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

		SJN
Docket No: 09474-05
9 May 2006

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

Subj:	REVIEW OF NAVAL OF RECORD

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

End:	(1) DD Form 149 with attachments
(2) Case Summary
(3) Subjects 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  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  Petitioners 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 enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statue of limitations and review the application on its merits.

c. Petitioner reenlisted in the Navy on 31 March 1989 after four years of honorable service. During his service, Petitioner was advanced to petty officer third class (BM3; E-4), and was awarded the Good Conduct Medal and Combat Action Medal. However, on 11 April 1990 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from physical fitness training. He received a suspended reduction in paygrade and 45 days extra duty.

d. On 12 April 1991, Petitioner was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of making a false official statement, damaging a government vehicle, wrongful appropriation of a command vehicle, and subscribing under oath a false statement in a Naval incident complaint report. He was sentenced to confinement, reduction in paygrade and a fine. If the fine was not paid, he was to be further confined for an additional 30 days. The convening authority later directed execution of the reduction to paygrade E-4, but suspended all other punishment for a period for 12 months.

e. On 9 August 1991, Petitioner was issued an administrative counseling and warning entry outlining his deficiencies, recommending corrective actions, and warning that further deficiencies could result in administrative separation.

f. On 7 January 1992, Petitioner was placed on a petty officer quality control program and restricted from reenlisting or extending his enlistment without permission from the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP).

g. Ten months later, on 9 November 1992, Petitioner requested that the reenlistment restriction be removed so that he could join the reserves. His commanding officer (CO) forwarded his request recommending approval on 27 November 1992, stating that Petitioner had potential to make a quality contribution in the reserve force. CNP denied his request on 9 December 1992 and directed that Petitioner be assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code upon separation.

h. On 30 March 1993 Petitioner received an honorable discharge at the completion of his required service and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. Additionally, his CO, stated in the separation evaluation that he had been counseled on many occasions in regard to improving his work habits, military bearing, and attitude. The CO did not recommend him for reenlistment.

i. With his application, Petitioner states that he joined the Army National Guard, attended a four-week boot camp and has learned how to be a soldier. He further states that he was offered and accepted a fulltime active duty special work position. He now requests a change in his reenlistment code so he can apply to the active guard and reserve. A letter from a staff sergeant serving as a recruiter supports Petitioner’s request stating that he “is an asset to the National Guard and he feels he should obtain his reenlistment reclassification.”

CONCLUSION:

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

In this regard, the Board notes Petitioner’s overall record of military service, including almost two years of service without any disciplinary infractions after the SPCM, his current status with the Army National Guard, and the reference letter from the recruiter. The Board therefore concludes that no useful purpose is served by the most restrictive reenlistment code of RE-4, and an RE-l code would more accurately reflect his ability to perform useful military service.

RECOMMENDAT ION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 30 March 1993 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

Review and approved:
Robert T. Cali	
4-28-06