DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
	                                                                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
						WASHINGTON DC 2037o~5 100

					Docket No: 326-06
									10 October 2006

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

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

	 End	(1) Case Summary
(2)  Subj cots naval record

1 Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Petitioner a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed an application~ wilt this Board requesting that his reenlistment code be changed.

2 The Board consisting of Mr  Mr  Ms reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 September 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 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 1 March 2001 at age
18.	He successfully completed recruit training and reported for further training as a hospital corpsman. Subsequently, he learned that his father’s physical condition was deteriorating, and he could no longer maintain the family business. Consequently, Petitioner requested a hardship discharge. After review, the discharge~ authority directed a general discharge and the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code. The general discharge was issued on 25 September 2001. At that time, he had completed nine months and seven days of active service.
d.	Regulations require the issuance of either an honorable or a general discharged as warranted by the service record when an individual is discharged by reason of hardship. There are no performance evaluations or any other documentation in the record to show that his service was less than satisfactory.

e.	Regulations also allow for the assignment of an RE—3H or an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged by reason of hardship.

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 there is nothing in the record to support the decision to issue a general discharge instead of an honorable discharge. Since he only served about nine months and there is nothing derogatory in the record, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is served by the general discharge and it should now be changed to an honorable discharge.

Concerning the reenlistment code, the Board believes that since there is nothing derogatory in the record, the reenlistment code should now be changed to the less restrictive RE-3H reenlistment code. This code will alert recruiters that there is a problem that must be resolved before enlistment should be authorized.

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 corrections to the record.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 25 September 2001 he was issued an honorable discharge by reason of hardship vice the general discharge now of record.

b.	That Petitioner’s naval record be further corrected to show that on 25 September 2001 he was assigned an RE-3H reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.

c.	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

2
complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled
matter.	~	~
	t,
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

3