DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
	-	SMW
		Docket No: 4508-06
		9 January 2007

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

Subj:	REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 

Ref:	(a) 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, applied to this Board requesting changes in the characterization of service, reason for separation and reenlistment code.

2.	The Board, consisting of Mr. Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 January 2007, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, grossly incomplete Naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board also considered copies of all documents and e-mails referenced, which were provided by Petitioner.

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.	Petitioner’s application was filed in a timely manner.

c.	Petitioner enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) of the Navy Reserve on 17 July 2001 at age 21. At that time, he was guaranteed the nuclear field and an $8,000 bonus upon enlistment in the Navy. His enlistment contract called upon him to enlist on 11 June 2002 for a period of four years. At the time of his enlistment in the DEP, Petitioner had completed three years of college.

d.	On 22 August 2001 Petitioner began his senior year of college with a projected graduation date of May 2002.

e.	A Navy recruiting internal memorandum of 24 September 2001 directed cancellation of Petitioner’s “ship date” of June 2002, and substitution of an unspecified date in February 2002. Additional documents executed on that same date included a Navy College Assistance Student Headstart (CASH) Program service agreement that established 20 February 2002 as Petitioner’s projected ship date for recruit training; a Navy CASH Program letter of responsibility to Petitioner; and active duty orders that directed Petitioner to serve in the Navy CASH Program during a four month course of study with a projected completion date of 15 December 2001.

f.	On 28 September 2001 Petitioner enlisted in the Navy for a period of four years. A 28-month extension was also executed on that same date because of his assignment in the nuclear field and participation in the Navy CASH Program.

g.	An e-mail of 15 January 2002 from Petitioner to an officer selection officer (QSO) shows that he submitted a draft application for a commission in the Navy.

h.	By an e-mail of 17 January 2002, Petitioner informed the Navy CASH Program coordinator that he had been working with an OSO and trying to get changed to a commissioning program. Petitioner’s e-mail further stated, in essence, that he or the OSO would notify the Navy CASH Program coordinator when the commissioning application was complete.

i.	An e-mail dated 30 January 2002 from the Navy CASH Program coordinator asked for the status of Petitioner’s officer package.

j.	An e-mail dated 26 February 2002 from the OSO advised Petitioner that the OSO had been out of touch because of personal business, and that he would look over Petitioner’s kit’ and what had come in the mail so that they could finish the application.

k.	An e-mail dated 3 March 2002 from the OSO stated, in essence, that he had tried to contact Petitioner, and advised him that spring break would be a good time to finish everything and get the package off to the Navy.

1.	An e-mail dated 11 March 2002 from the Navy CASH Program coordinator directed Petitioner to report for recruit training on 14 March 2002 and advised him that failure to do so would place him in an absent without leave status. The coordinator further stated that there were no available nuclear seats in which to place him to allow further processing of his Bachelor Degree Completion Program (BDCP) application, and he was disturbed that during the past month, Petitioner had failed to complete his application for a commission. This e-mail indicated that the “ship date” of 20 February 2002 had been changed to 14 March 2002, apparently to allow Petitioner additional time to submit a commissioning application.

m.	An e-mail dated 16 March 2002 that Petitioner sent to the Navy CASH Program coordinator stated that he decided not to report to boot camp at that time.

n.	An e-mail dated 18 March 2002 from the Navy CASH’ Program coordinator informed Petitioner, in essence, that he had been placed in an absence without leave status and his pay stopped as of 16 March 2002 due to his failure to report for recruit training. The coordinator further advised Petitioner that he was also charged with failure to obey a lawful order and that he was being processed for discharge under less than honorable conditions and recoupment of all pay and allowances.

o.	An e-mail dated 30 March 2002 from the OSO stated, in essence, that he had returned from an emergency trip to the MidWest and had received Petitioner’s e-mails and phone messages. The OSO further stated that he had not been aware of the second ship date and was not sure that there was anything that he could do since orders had been issued. The OSO further stated, in essence, that when they first began talking during the previous summer, and again in December and January about a commissioning program, that the OSO told Petitioner that he needed to move fast because acceptance into an officer program was not a given.

p.	On 1 April 2002 Petitioner wrote a letter to a congressman in which he stated, in essence, that his goal had always been to enter the Navy as an officer. However, because of his contractual affiliation to earn extra money to apply toward his education expenses, his plans were curtailed when he was directed to report to enlisted recruit training during his final semester of college. Petitioner further stated that the recruiters and the OSO knew that he was applying for a commission, but through lack of communication and action by several individuals, his commissioning application was never processed.

q.	On 5 May 2002 Petitioner graduated from college with a Bachelor of Science degree in biochemistry.

r.	On 9 May 2002 Petitioner reported for duty as a recruiter’s aide.

s.	On 14 May 2002 the Navy Recruiting Command responded to the congressional inquiry, which states, in part, as follows:

... We have been advised that Petitioner enlisted in the Navy-CASH Program on 28 September 2001 and was scheduled to depart for recruit training on

3