DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203705100

TRG
Docket No: 2895-06
1 November 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 record

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

2.	The Board, consisting of Mr. Mr. wand Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 17 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.	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 July 1998 at age 18.	After completion of initial training he reported to his first duty station on 17 June 1999. The two performance evaluations covering the period from 18 July 1999 to 15 July 2001 contain marginal marks of 2.0 in the categories of quality of professional knowledge, quality of work, military bearing/character and teamwork. The evaluation comments mention lack of initiative, need for supervision, poor personal appearance and failure to pay debts. The second evaluation mentions that he was beginning to improve in some of these areas. In both evaluations, he was recommended for promotion and retention in the Navy.

d.	Petitioner was an unauthorized absentee from 20 to 27 December 2001. Although it is not filed in his record, he apparently received nonjudicial punishment for this offense because at that time he was reduced in rate from seaman(SN; E-3) to seaman apprentice (SA; E-2).

e.	In the evaluation for the period 16 July 2001 to 1 July 2002, Petitioner was assigned satisfactory marks of 3.0 in every category in which he was evaluated. The evaluation comments mention that he was a good sailor during the evaluation period, and he was recommended for promotion and retention in the Navy.

f.	Petitioner was released from active duty on 30 June 2002 with his service characterized as honorable. At that time, he was serving as an SA. He was not recommended for reenlistment and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. He signed a statement acknowledging this action.

g.	Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual completes an extended period of active duty and is serving in pay grade E-2. An RE-3R reenlistment code is authorized when an individual is recommended for advancement but is not advanced to petty officer during a first enlistment.

h.	Petitioner desires a change in his reenlistment code so that he can enlisted in a reserve component of the armed services.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. The Board does not condone the period of unauthorized absence which resulted in his reduction to SA and his period of poor performance. Further, it is clear that the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code was required by regulations. Given these factors, the Board concludes that.an RE-i reenlistment code is not appropriate in this case.

However, since the last evaluation recommended him for promotion and retention in the Navy, it is clear that he would have been readvanced to SN as soon as he reached the required time in rate. Since he was recommended for advancement and retention in his last performance evaluation and desires to serve, the Board concludes that no useful service is served by the RE-4 reenlistment code and it should now be changed to an RE-3R reenlistment code as an exception to policy. This code will alert recruiters that there is a problem that must be resolved before reenlistment is authorized, but will not preclude consideration for reenlistment.

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 change in the reenlistment code.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record by corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 to show that on 30 June 2002 he was assigned an RE-3R reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.

b. That his request for an RE-i reenlistment code be denied.

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 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