DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
		BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
	WASHINGTON DC 2O37O 

					    TRG
Docket No: 9200-06
19 January 2006

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

Subj:	REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF

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 his reenlistment code be changed.

2.	The Board, consisting of Ms. Gilbert, Ms. McCormick and Ms. Humphrey, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of 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 16 June 1993 at age 17.	Subsequently, he was selected to participate in the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) Program. He was honorably discharged on 30 August 1994 so that he could be appointed a midshipman prior to the start of his college classes. ‘At the time of discharge, in accordance with regulations then in effect, Petitioner was assigned an RE-2 reenlistment code.

d.	Regulations in effect at the time of Petitioner’s discharge required the assignment of an RE-2 reenlistment code when an enlisted member was discharged to enter a commissioning program. This code was not considered to be a waiverable code.

Since then the regulations have changed to allow for the assignment of an RE-i reenlistment code in cases such as this.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. Clearly Petitioner would not have been selected for the NROTC program if he did not have a good record. Since, the regulations have changed, the Board concludes that no useful purpose is now served by retaining RE-2 reenlistment code and it should now be changed to an RE-i reenlistment code.

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 change in the reenlistment code.

RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 to show that on 30 August 1994 he was assigned an RE-i reenlistment code vice the RE-2 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 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.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

2