DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
	WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 I 00 

							TJR
										Docket No: 2668-06
										5 October 2006

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

Subj 

Ref:	(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
(b)	OPNAVINST 1160,5C
(c)	BUPERSINST l900.8A

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 that his reenlistment code be changed.

2 The Board, consisting of Messrs and reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 3 October 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 28 July 1992 at age
19.	He served without disciplinary incident and was advanced to paygrade E-4.

d.	Petitioner was awarded a National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with Bronze Star, Battle “E”, Good Conduct Medal, and an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. He was also awarded the Sea Service Deployment Ribbons (three awards) and a .45 Marksman Ribbon.

e.	Petitioner’s separation performance evaluation for the period from 16 July to 31 December 1998 states that he was not recommended for retention due to his failure of three physical fitness assessment (PFA) tests. This evaluation also stated, in part, as follows:

Member is being separated due to third failure to meet Navy PRT standards.... he flawlessly processed over 400 student receipts, generated over 500 pay documents, and processed over 400 advanced pay requests, travel claims, and advance per diem requests. . . .he is an extremely capable individual who has been a valuable asset to this command. .. . consistently took on all tasks assigned with characteristics diligence and attention to detail.... his notable performance has made a valuable, lasting impact

f.	Petitioner’s record contains a letter dated 16 November 1998 which states that he was to be honorably discharged by reason of physical standards and assigned an RE-3F reenlistment code. However, the letter was edited by crossing out the RE-3F reenlistment code and writing in an RE-4 reenlistment code.

g.	On 31 December 1998 Petitioner was honorably discharged by reason of physical standards and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

h.	Reference (b) authorizes the issuance of an RE-4 reenlistment code to Sailors who are serving in paygrade E-4 and are not recommended for retention and/or reenlistment. Reference (c), however, authorizes the issuance of either an RE-4 or an RE—3F reenlistment code for a Sailor, such as Petitioner, who was not recommended for retention due to PFA failures.

i.	In Petitioner’s application, he contends that the 16 November 1998 letter which assigned an RE-3F reenlistment code was erroneously altered out because he was discharged for PRT/PFA failure. He also states that he attempted to have the correction made before being discharged, but was unable to do so.

2

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

The Board’s decision is based on Petitioner’s overall record of service during which he received no disciplinary infractions, was advanced in rate, and received a Good Conduct Medal and numerous services awards. Although he was not recommended for retention, the Board notes that this nonrecommendation was apparently based solely on his failure of the three PFA tests. Since an RE-3F reenlistment code is authorized for a Sailor who is separated by reason of physical standards, the Board believes that an RE-3F is now the most appropriate reenlistment code given Petitioner’s situation. Accordingly, the record should be corrected to show that he was assigned such a code.

RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned an RE-3F reenlistment code on 31 December 1998 vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually assigned on that date.

b.	That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed, or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.

c.	That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner’s naval record be returned to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of 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