DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37Q~51OO
CRS
Docket No: 2977-06
29 November 2006

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

Subj:	REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 0

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

End:	(1)      DD Form 149 w/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 in effect, that her reenlistment code be changed, a favorable enlisted evaluation be filed in her record, and an extension to an adverse evaluation be removed.

2.	The Board, consisting of Mr Mr , and Ms reviewed Petitioner’s a1legations of error and injustice on 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 20 September 2000.

d.	The record reflects that on 26 January 2001 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for assault.

e.	Petitioner received an adverse performance evaluation for the period 16 June 2004 to 15 June 2005 and was not recommended for retention in the Navy. Subsequently, the period of the evaluation was extended to end on 15 August 2005. Further, Petitioner received a copy of an evaluation from the supply department where she worked that covered the period 16
June 2005 to 15 September 2005. This evaluation recommended her for reenlistment. On 19 September 2005, she was honorably separated and transferred to the Navy Reserve. At that time, she was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code based on the adverse evaluation which was extended to 15 August 2005.

f.	An advisory opinion from the Navy Personnel Command, dated 30 May 2006, opined that the 15 September 2005 evaluation was never seen by the ship’s office and, if it had been, she would have received an RE-I reenlistment code.

g.	A second advisory opinion from the Navy Personnel Command, dated 24 August 2006, states that prior to 15 June 2006, enlisted evaluations for individuals such as Petitioner serving in pay grade E-4 and below were only kept in the individual’s field service record and not retained upon separation. The opinion further stated that the extended evaluation was not valid due to numerous errors and the fact that Petitioner separated on 19 September 2005. The opinion recommended extending the supply department evaluation to 19 September 2005, and getting her to sign this evaluation.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board disagrees with that part of the advisory opinion that recommends relief by changing an enlisted evaluation since it is no longer maintained in Petitioner’s service record and such a change serves no useful purpose. The Board, however, agrees with that part of the advisory opinion that states that the RE-4 reenlistment code appears to be unjust. Accordingly, the reenlistment code should be changed to RE-i.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 19 September 2005 she was issued an honorable separation and transferred to the Navy Reserve with an RE-i reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually issued on that date.

b. That no further relief be granted.

c. 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 
expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.

d. 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 references 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 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.

3