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

TRG
Docket No: 9629-06
14 March 2007

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 Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that the record be corrected to show that she was advanced to petty officer second class (PN2; E-5), and by changing her reenlistment code.

2.	The Board, consisting of Mr. Pfeiffer, Mr. Ivins and Ms. Countryman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 27 February 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.	Petitioner’s application was filed in a timely manner.

c.	Petitioner enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 29 January 1998 at age 29. She then served in an excellent manner for almost six years. During this period, on 16 April 2000 she was advanced to petty officer third class (PN3; E-4). A review of her performance evaluations for the period from 29 January 1998 to 16 June 2002, shows no individual trait average below 3.5 and continuous “must promote” or “early promote” recommendations.

d.  On 15 December 2003, Petitioner had surgery on her foot and apparently was unable to complete the physical fitness assessment (PFA) before and after that date. On 12 January 2004 her orders in a drill pay status were terminated because of her inability to maintain satisfactory drill attendance and she was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). At that time, she was not recommended for reaffiliation. The reason for transfer was “member did not complete the requirements of the APG (Advanced Pay Grade) program.” On 13 August 2004 she was notified by the Navy Reserve Center that she had been placed in a temporarily not physically qualified (TNPQ) effective 10 June 2004. She was honorably discharged on 28 January 2006.

e.	Petitioner states in her application that she passed the test for PN2. but was not advanced because of her inability to pass the run portion of the PFA due to her foot problem. She tried to arrange a swimming test to fulfill the PFA requirements but was not able to do so prior to surgery on her foot. She contends that the transfer to the IRR was improper because resolution of her physical status was still pending. She desires corrections to her record so that she can enlist in the National Guard.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. The Board believes that her six years of excellent service and the fact that she was unable to pass the PFA only because of her foot problem support her contention that a nonrecommendation for reaffiliation was inappropriate in this case. Further, it is clear that there was some confusion since she was transferred to TNPQ status six months after she had been transferred to the IRR by her unit. In view of these factors, the Board concludes that her record should be corrected wherever necessary to show that she was recommended for reaffiliatjon. Since she desires to enlist in the National Guard, any appropriate data base should be corrected to show an RE-i reenlistment code.

Concerning her request for advancement to PN2, there is no evidence in the record to show that she was qualified to take the advancement examination or, if she was, that she passed the advancement examination with a high enough score. Since there is no such evidence, the Board concludes that her request for advancement to PN2 should be denied.

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 reasons for the change in the reenlistment recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected wherever

2
necessary to show that she was recommended for reaffiliation on12 January 2004 and at the time of her discharge on 28 January 2006.

b. That her request for advancement to PN2 be denied.

c. 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.

3