DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD OF CORRECTION OF NAVAL PECOF~DS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 

					TRG
   Docket No: 9851-05
   10 May 2006

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 eord

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Naval Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that the reenlistment code from a former enlistment be changed.

2. - he Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 25 April 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. 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 consider the application on its merits.

c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 9 December 1997 at age 18. He performed poorly in recruit training as indicated by several entries in which he was counseled as to his deficiencies, and warned that further problems could result in administrative separation. In a recruit evaluation report, dated 9 February 1998, he was rated as being poor in six of eight categories and was recommended for separation from the Navy. He subsequently violated the warning entry and was processed f or an administrative separation. In connection with this processing, he elected to waive his procedural rights. After review, the separation authority directed an entry level separation by reason of entry level performance and conduct, and he was so separated on 17 February 1998. At that time, he was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

d. About four years later, Petitioner applied for enlistment in the Naval Reserve. On 27 February 2002, after a review of his excellent work and academic history, the Commander Naval Reserve Recruiting Command granted him a waiver to enlist in the Naval Reserve. Petitioner enlisted on 27 February 2002 at age 23. Based on his background, he was temporarily advanced to seaman (SN; E-3) . Since enlistment, Petitioner has served in an outstanding manner and has been advanced to petty officer third class (1T3; E-4). Subsequently, he was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal for professional achievement during the period from January to December 2004 in connection with being named Sailor of the Year. In his performance evaluation for the period 16 June 2004 to 15 June 2005, the Individual Trait Average is 4.43 and he is recommended for early promotion.

e. In his application to the Board, Petitioner requests a change in the RE-4 reenlistment code he was assigned on 17 February 1998 because it is preventing him from performing extended periods of active duty and enlisting in the Regular Navy. He states that he has been working full time in the information technology field since 2001 and is attempting to earn his Bachelor of Computer Science on a part time basis. Concerning his first period of service, he states, in part, as follows:

.In retrospect, I lacked the maturity to enlisted in the Navy in 1997. .... Prior to my enlistment, I had never left the State of Texas. I enlisted to escape from embarrassment to my family caused by one (of) my brothers who had been charged with a felony. I thoug~ getting away from the turmoil in my family was a good idea at the time, but the letters and telephone calls I received from home during basic training distracted me from my military duties and cause me to simply want to go back home. I still did well on my exams and completed most of my training, but I did not talk to anyone about my family situation. Had I had the judgment and maturity I have now, I would have benefited from counseling and advice that was available     

Petitioner’s current commanding officer states, in part, as follows:

My experience is that (Petitioner) is a motivated

2

conscientious sailor. In the last two years, (he) has done 67 days of Annual Training in direct operational support of the US Navy, far in excess of his 12 day per year requirement. ... He has been a huge asset to the Reserve Center and the Readiness Command by his willingness to drop everything and provide expert Information Technology support      Additionally, he has served as a funeral detail member for over forty funerals for WWII veterans over the last two years.

...	I believed that (Petitioner) has now successfully “adapted to a naval environment” and that he should be seriously considered for enlistment in the Active Component of the US Navy, and therefore that his RE code should be adjusted accordingly.

Petitioner’s current employer states that he has a strong work ethic and has contributed greatly to the product development of the company and he also is responsible for maintaining the integrity of client computer networks against any damaging intrusions.

f. Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is separated because of entry level performance and conduct. An individual may be separated for the best interest of the service or Secretarial Authority in those cases where separation is warranted but no other reason for separation is appropriate. Individuals separated for this reason may be awarded various reenlistment codes including an RE-i code.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. It is clear that Petitioner was properly separated with an RE-4 reenlistment code in 1998. However, it is also clear that he has served in an outstanding manner since he enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 27 February 2002 and has otherwise become a good citizen. Therefore, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is now served by the 1998 RE-4 reenlistment code and a correction to the record is appropriate to allow further active service. Accordingly, Petitioner’s record should be corrected to show that he was separated from the Navy on 17 February 1998 by reason of Secretarial Authority with an RE-i 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 rationale for the change in the reason for separation and reenlistment code.

3

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 17 February 1998 he received an entry level separation by reason of Secretarial Authority and was assigned an RE-i reenlistment code.

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.	-~ - -> -

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.

                                                                   W. DEAN PFEIFFER

Executive Director

4