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

				       SJN
Docket No: 09427-06
30 April 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) DD Form 149 with attachments
(2)	Case Summary
(3)	Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change to his reenlistment code.

2. The Board, consisting of Mr  reviewed Petitioner’s allegations o error an injustice on 25 April 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 enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statue of limitations and review the application on its merits.

C.	Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 28 April 1980 age 18. During the period from 17 April 1981 to 24 May 1983 he received four nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) for damaging government property, two instances of failing to go to his appointed place of duty, disobedience, and drunk and disorderly conduct.

d.	He also committed a three-day period of unauthorized absence (UA), for which no disciplinary action was taken. Petitioner was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the Marine Corps reserve at the expiration of his enlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. He received an honorable discharge upon completion of his military obligation.

e.	With his application, Petitioner states that he was very young and made some stupid errors while he was a Marine and that he was asked to reenlist, but chose to leave the service. Further, he states that he did not realize the importance of his reenlistment code.

f.	Petitioner has been a police officer since 1990 and has received a myriad of commendations, awards, certificates, and letters of appreciation.

g.	An advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps states that Petitioner was counseled concerning not being recommended for promotion, frequent involvement with military authorities, frequent alcohol related incidents, not being recommend retention, that he received four nonjudicjal punishments (NJP’s) for misconduct, and was properly assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code based on his overall record at the completion of his required active service. The opinion also states that once a reenlistment code is correctly assigned it is not routinely changed or upgraded as a result of events that occur after separation or based merely on the passage of time.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record and despite the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps, the Board concludes that even though the RE-4 reenlistment code was properly assigned, based on Petitioner’s honorable service and post service achievements, the record should be corrected to show a more favorable reenlistment code. In this regard, the Board notes the relatively minor nature of most of the disciplinary infractions. Further, Petitioner’s service was characterized as fully honorable after he completed his entire enlistment. Finally, his commitment to the community as a police officer leads the Board to believe that the RE-4 reenlistment code is now unfair and it should be changed to RE-i.
RECONMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 30 April 1984 Petitioner was assigned an RE-I reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually issued 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 on 1 November 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.

A’,

ALAN E. GOLDSMITH 					ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Recorder						Recorder

5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.
Reviewed and approved:

Robert T. Call
Assistant General Counsel
Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
						W. DEAN PFIEFFER
						Executive Director