DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
					2 NAVY ANNEX
						   WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100       
										   TRG
Docket No: 8485-06
22 January 2007

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

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 her reenlistment code be changed.

2  Board, consisting of Ms. Ms. and Ms. previewed Petitioner’s allegations error and
injustice on 9 January 2007 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 31 January 1989. She was married to an active duty member of the Navy on 9 December 1989 and on 2~5 June 1991 her daughter was born, On 16. December 1991, she was advanced to petty officer third class (AMS3 (E-4).

d.	Subsequently, Petitioner was processed for an administrative discharge by reason of parenthood. On 21 April 1992, the commanding officer directed an honorable discharge stating, in part, as follows:

It is clear in her statement that she is unable to meet her military obligations and provided adequate child care for her dependent.

e; The Enlisted performance Record (page 9) show that in Petitioner’s last performance evaluation, for the period ending 6 May 1992, she received no marks below 3.4. The page 9 indicates that she was ineligible for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. Petitioner was honorably discharged on 6 May 1992. At that time, she was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

f. Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-3B or an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to parenthood.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. Since Petitioner served in a satisfactory manner without any disciplinary infractions, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is served by the RE-4 reenlistment code and it should now be changed to the less restrictive RE-3B reenlistment code. This code will alert recruiters that there is a problem which must be resolved before enlistment should be authorized.

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 reason for the assignment of the RE-3B reenlistment code.

RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 to show that on 6 May 1992, she was assigned an RE-3B reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record.

b.	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