Docket No.3412-20
Ref:   Signature Date

From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER  ,              , USN 
 
Ref:   (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 
 
Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 
  
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, Petitioner, a former enlisted Sailor, filed the enclosure with this Board, requesting a change to his reentry (RE) code. 
 
2.  The Board, consisting of   , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 4 September 2020 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 enclosure, relevant portions of the Petitioner’s 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 3 January 2002.  On 14 January 2002, Petitioner was referred for a psychological evaluation and diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  The medical record notes read, in part:  “This is the second referral for this 19 year old recruit who claimed he sleepwalked, not witnessed by anyone, got his shaving kit and somehow slashed his thigh (superficially) with a razor blade.”  The Medical Officer noted that Petitioner was vague and evasive regarding his medical history and the details of the event.  Additionally, the Medical Officer noted that the Petitioner denied suicidal or homicidal ideations and indicated that he wanted to be separated from the Navy.  
 
      c.  On 23 January 2002, Petitioner was discharged with an entry-level separation characterization of service, a separation code “JFC,” a RE code, “RE-4,” and a narrative reason for separation “erroneous enlistment.” 
 
      d.  On 24 September 2008, the Board denied Petitioner’s request to change his RE code.  On 25 May 2010, 21 Oct 2011, and 8 July 2016, the Board denied Petitioner’s requests for reconsideration citing the new evidence provided by the Petitioner was not material. 
 
      e.  Petitioner asserts he was given a  RE-4 because he was diagnosed with ADHD during initial recruit training.  However, Petitioner contends that he has never been diagnosed with ADHD.  Petitioner states he received a master’s degree and graduated Magna Cum Laude, and has completed over 50 graduate level credits, some at the University of .  In support of his application, Petitioner attached a copy of a note on a prescription pad (previously submitted with 2008 application) from , DO that reads:  “[Petitioner’s name] has been a patient since 8/84.  He has never been seen for ADD or even given ADD diagnosis.”  Additionally, Petitioner submitted a personal statement that read, in part:  “I know this is my third attempt and is most likely fruitless, however, life is short, and when someone spends a significant portion of their life dreaming of being in the military, it seems illogical not to try.  The person who enlisted in the military nearly 2 decades ago was a foolish person who wasn’t prepared.  …Since my discharge I have graduated from college with honors, completed my master’s degree and earned additional post-graduate credits.  I have done all this while raising a family, pitting my wife through college, and working full time.  I am not trying to reenlist because of financial reasons, but truly for me to serve my country and make up for the mistake of quitting in the past.”  Lastly, Petitioner submitted copies of his educational transcripts. 
 
      f.  The Board determined there was no error because assignment of RE-4 was authorized for an ELS for erroneous enlistment.  However, a RE-4 renders Petitioner ineligible to reenlist.  Rather, the Board determined, as a matter of clemency, that a RE-8, indicating temporary medical conditions or unsatisfactory initial performance and conduct (available to recruits assigned to Recruit Training Command for initial training only) was more appropriate and would enable Petitioner the opportunity to seek a waiver to reenlist. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting relief. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by changing his DD Form 214, Block 27, Reentry Code to RE-8. 
 
Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214. 
 
That no further action be granted. 
 
A copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.
 
That upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs is informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 10 April 2020. 
 
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. 
 
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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.