DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
				       2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

							
										SMW										Docket No: 5214-06
          29 September 2006

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

Sub:	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 United States Marine Corps, applied to this Board requesting an RE-3 reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually assigned on 29 April 2005.

2.	The Board, consisting of Mr. , Mr. and Mr.  reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 27 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 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 Marine Corps on 22 January 2003 at age 17 with parental consent. At the time of enlistment Petitioner was a high school graduate, but his test scores were below average.

d.	Petitioner was subsequently screened for assignment to a personnel reliability billet, and on 4 October 2004 he reported to a Marine Corps Security Force reliability billet.
e.	On 18 August 2004 Petitioner married.
f.	On 9 November 2004 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for operating his privately owned vehicle (POV) without insurance. He was counseled on that same date and warned that further infractions Could result in administrative separation.

g.	On 4 February 2005 Petitioner received NJP for underage drinking and making a false official statement. Petitioner was counseled on that same date and warned that further infractions could result in administrative separation.

h.	On 18 April 2005 Petitioner was permanently decertified from assignment to reliability billets.

i.	On 27 April 2005 Petitioner received NJP for operating his vehicle without insurance, and was counseled on that same date that further infractions could result in administrative separation.

j.	On 29 April 2005 Petitioner was separated under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.

k.	In his application, Petitioner asserts that he does not believe the severity of his offenses should prevent him from being considered for reenlistment in another branch of the armed forces. He also claims that he can not get a decent job with a mediocre discharge and asks that he be given another chance to correct his mistakes, better himself and take care of his family.

1.	Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps (M~ER) , which states, in part, as follows:

Petitioner’s service record has been reviewed and it has been determined that at the time of separation he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, which means that he was not recommended for reenlistment.

Petitioner was discharged under honorable conditions on 29 April 2005, by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. A review of his service record indicates that he was counseled concerning drinking under the age of 21; having unauthorized guests in the barracks after hours, driving his privately owned vehicle without insurance; making a false official statement; not being recommended for promotion; and being permanently decertified for assignment to a reliability billet. The disciplinary portion of his record shows he received three NJP’s under the Uniform

2
Code of Military Justice for offenses that included operating his POV without insurance, making a false official statement and consuming alcohol under the age of 21.

After review of all relevant information, this Headquarters concurs in the professional evaluation of Petitioner’s qualifications for reenlistment at the time of separation.

m.	Regulations authorize assignment of an RE—4 reenlistment code to individuals who are found not qualified for reenlistment at the time of separation. However, regulations also authorize assignment of an RE-3C reenlistment code if such a code is directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps if the individual is not eligible for reenlistment and the disqualification is not covered by another code. This code is often assigned to individuals whose records do not warrant an RE-lA code, but whose conduct and performance are not sufficiently adverse for an RE-4.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. Specifically, the Board believes that Petitioner’s disciplinary actions were proper and discharge appears to have been processed in accordance with regulations. However, the Board considered Petitioner’s age at the time of enlistment, assignment to a reliability billet immediately after completing initial training and then marrying several months later. The Board conceded the Marine Corps necessity of requiring strict adherence of regulations while individuals are assigned to reliability billets, however, it questioned whether Petitioner would have been recommended for administrative separation for his offenses if he had been serving in a billet of his military occupational specialty (MOS) of rifleman. Finally, Petitioner was counseled on 27 April 2005 and warned on that same date that further infractions could result in administrative separation, but was discharged only two days later. Therefore, the Board concludes that as a matter of clemency, the reenlistment code of RE-4 should be changed to RE-3C.

BOARD RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s Naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-3C on 29 April 2005 vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually assigned on that date.

b.	That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s Naval record.

3

c.	That upon request, the Veterans Administration be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 14 June 2006.

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.	The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.

						W. DEAN PFEIFFER
									Executive Director	

Reviewed and approved:

ROBERT T. CALI
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)