SJN
Docket No: 06615-07
8 April 2008

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

Subj:	REVIEW OF

Ref:	(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
(b)	OPNAVINST 1l60.5C

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 Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change in her RE-4 reenlistment code.

2.  Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 2 April 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.	Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.

c.	Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 20 August 2002. During her enlistment, Petitioner served without disciplinary incident and received above average evaluations.

d.	Petitioner states that she lost your mother, leaving her grandfather to care for himself. At that time, he was not in good health and she was the only one that was able to relocate closer to him to provide care.

e.	Based on the information currently contained in the Petitioner’s record it appears she submitted a request for hardship discharge through her chain of command. At that time, it was in the best interest of the Petitioner and the Navy. Petitioner’s commanding officer approved her request and directed that she be separated due to hardship.

f.	The discharge authority directed an honorable discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to hardship and assigned a reenlistment code of RE—4. Petitioner was discharged on 28 April 2005.

g.	In her application, Petitioner contends that she now has other family members living closer to her grandfather to help care for him, and wants to reenter the Navy.

h.	The reenlistment code of RE-4 means that Petitioner is not recommended for reenlistment. However, she could have been assigned a code of RE-3H, meaning that she was discharged due to hardship.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action based upon her overall record of military service, including no disciplinary actions and the fact that she received primarily above average evaluations. The Board therefore concludes that no useful purpose is served by assignment of the most restrictive reenlistment code of RE-4, and assignment of the RE-3H code more accurately reflects the quality of her service.

RECONMENDATION

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 28 April 2005 Petitioner was issued a RE-3H 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.

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 Regulation, 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