DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 464-20 Ref: Signature date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER XXX-XX-, USMC Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) MARCORSEPMAN Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachment (2) Nonjudicial Punishment (3)FITREP (Page 1, Date of Rank) (4) FITREP (Page 5, Reviewing Officer Recommendation) (5) DD Form 214 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his DD Form 214 be corrected by changing his reenlistment code from RE-4 to one that will allow him to reenlist in the military. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 September 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that no corrective action should be taken. As discussed below, I disagree with the Board’s conclusion. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval service 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 regulation 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 review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 20 September 2010. d. On 29 May 2013, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for drunken and reckless driving in violation of Article 111, Uniform Code of Military Justice. His blood alcohol concentration was measured at .13. He was reduction in rank to LCPL/E-3 (from CPL/E-4), forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty. See enclosure (2). e. Petitioner subsequently regained his rank and was promoted to Sergeant (E-5) as of 1 May 2015. See enclosure (3). f. On 19 September 2015, Petitioner was released from active duty upon the completion of his required active service with an honorable discharge, and transferred to the individual ready reserve (IRR). Although Petitioner was transferred to the IRR and received an honorable discharge, enclosure (5) reflects that his reentry code was RE-4. g. On 19 October 2015, Petitioner’s ReviewingOfficer “[h]ighly recommended [Petitioner] for promotion and retention” in his final fitness report. See enclosure (4). h. Per reference (b), a reentry code of RE-4 indicates that a Marine is not recommended for reenlistment. When this code is issued, a service record book entry is required stating the reason for assignment and the Marine must sign the entry. Additionally, Marines assigned a RE-4 are prohibited from transferring to the IRR. BOARD CONCLUSION: After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found no error or injustice warranting relief. In this regard, the Board believed that the severity of Petitioner’s NJP warranted the RE-4 reenlistment code. Furthermore, the Petitioner signed his DD Form 214 at the time of his discharge, thus acknowledging the RE-4 reenlistment code. The Board considered the mitigating circumstances to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief, but found them insufficient to outweigh the severity of Petitioner’s misconduct. BOARD RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board recommends that no corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s record. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S CONCLUSION: Contrary to the Board’s conclusion, I believe that the record reflects an error warranting relief. Absent the counseling required by reference (b), I believe that Petitioner’s reenlistment code of RE-4 was issued contraryto Marine Corps regulations. Additionally, by “highly” recommending Petitioner for promotion and retention and permitting him to transfer to the IRR, it appears that Petitioner’s chain of command did not intend for him to be ineligible for reenlistment. Accordingly, I believe that Petitioner’s RE-4 reenlistment code was issued in error, and relief is warranted. Even if not issued in error, however, I believe that the interests of justice also warrant relief. Petitioner received NJP for his misconduct, and demonstrated his rehabilitation by quickly regaining his lost rank and advancing even further. This was the only evidence of misconduct in Petitioner’s career, and his chain of command clearly thought highly of Petitioner as a Marine. Accordingly, I believe that the interests of justice would warrant relief even in the absence of an error, and that Petitioner should be permitted to reenlist in either the Marine Corps or in one of the sister services. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, I recommend that the following corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s service record: That Petitioner be issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflecting an RE-1 reentry code. 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. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Decision: Reviewed and Approved Executive Director Recommendation (Grant Relief)