DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-S 100

SMW
Docket No: 5470-06
16 October 2006

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

Subj 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 Navy, applied to this Board requesting a change in his RE-4 reenlistment code.

2.	The Board, consisting of Mr.  Mr. and Mr.  reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 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 Petitioners 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.	On 31 July 2001 Petitioner enlisted in the Navy at age 18. During the period from 14 February 2002 to 29 February 2004 Petitioner received four performance evaluations that recommended retention and promotion.

d.	On 10 June 2004 Petitioner failed the run/walk portion of the physical readiness test (PRT).

e.	On 15 June 2004 Petitioner received a performance evaluation that recommended retention and promotion. -

f.	On 24 July 2004 Petitioner was counseled regarding the PRT failure of 15 June 2004, and directed to participate in fitness
enhancement during which he would participate in physical training at least three times a week.

g.	On 13 October 2004 Petitioner failed the run/walk portion of the PRT, but his run/walk time improved by almost a minute and he lost 17 pounds.

h.	On 14 February 2005 Petitioner was counseled regarding the PRT failure of 13 October 2004, and again provided the necessary corrective action.

i.	A performance evaluation of 1 June 2005 stated that Petitioner was a key contributor, but was not recommended for retention due to PRT failures. On 30 July 2005 he was honorably released from active duty and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

j.	During his enlistment, Petitioner was awarded the Global
War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Navy Unit Commendation,
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, three awards of the Sea Service
Deployment Ribbon, three awards of the Overseas Service Ribbon,
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, National Defense Service
Medal, and Navy Good Conduct Medal.

k.	In his application, Petitioner states that he served four years of honorable service and was never the subject of any disciplinary action, but received an RE-4 reenlistment code because he failed two PRT’s. Petitioner further states that he does not deserve such a code and desires to reenlist in another branch of the armed forces. He requests that the RE-4 reenlistment code be changed.

1.	Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to Sailors who have completed their enlistment. The assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code under these circumstances means that a Sailor is not eligible or recommended for reenlistment. However, regulations also authorize the assignment of an RE-3F reenlistment code for a Sailor, such as Petitioner, who was not recommended for retention due to PRT failures.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. In this regard, although Petitioner was not recommended for retention, the Board notes that this recommendation was based only on his failure of two PRT’s. Since an RE-3F reenlistment code is authorized f or a Sailor who is separated upon completion of required active service, but not recommended for retention due to PRT failures, the Board believes that this code is the most

2
appropriate reenlistment code. Accordingly, the record should be corrected to show that he was assigned an RE-3F reenlistment code.

RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s Naval record be corrected to show that he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-3F on 30 July 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.

c.	That upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 21 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. 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