DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
				         BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
						 2 NAVY ANNEX
						      WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00

									 TRG
Docket No: 6423-07
22 May 2008

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 member of the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed.

2.	The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of
error and injustice on 13 May 2008 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 submitted in a timely manner.

c.	Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 30 January 1995 at age 23. At that time, she had a son born on 9 March 1993 and it appears that the son’s father was listed as the legal guardian. Apparently there was a subsist divorce. In 1998 she indicated that she could not comply with the provisions of the Family Care Plan Certificate. On 7 May 1998 she received nonjudicjal punishment for an unauthorized absence of about seven days and missing ship’s movement through neglect. The punishment imposed included restriction extra duty, forfeitures of pay and a reduction to airman apprentice. A portion of the restriction, extra duty and the reduction were suspended for six months.

d.	On 14 May 1998 Petitioner was counseled and warned that she had 30 days to resolve her problems with her inability to
deploy or perform her duties because of parenthood. Thirteen later she was notified of discharge processing due her commission of a serious offense and parenthood. In connection with this processing, she elected to waive the right to have her case heard by an administrative discharge board. After review, the discharge authority directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct. it was noted that she had violated her counseling and warning entry. Petitioner received the general discharge by reason of misconduct on 22 June 1998. At that time, she was not recommended for reenlistment and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

e.	Petitioner’s case was considered by the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) on 13 December 1999. NDRB found that the discharge was improper because she was processed for discharge only 13 days after she was given 30 days to resolve her problems. Accordingly, NDRB directed recharacterization of the discharge to honorable and found that the more appropriate reason for discharge was parenthood. Her record has been corrected to reflect the NDRB decision. However, NDRB had no authority to change the RE-4 reenlistment code.

f.	Although there is no documentation in Petitioner’s record, a Statement of Service for Navy Reserve Retirement indicates that she enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 30 April 2002, has earned qualifying years since then, and is currently serving as a petty officer third class.

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

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. Given the action taken by the NDRB and her subsequent service in the Navy Reserve, the Board concludes that the RE-4 reenlistment code is no longer warranted and it should now be changed to an RE-3B 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 reasons for the change in the Reenlistment code.

RECOMMENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 22June 1998 she was assigned an RE-3B reenlistment code vice

2

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	BRIAN J. GEORGE
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.

					
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director