DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Administrative discharge documents (3) Physician ltr of 22 Mar 2018 1. Pursuant to the reference, Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that his RE-4 reentry code be change to RE-3 and, if corrected, that it be further upgraded to RE-1, to allow him the opportunity for reenlistment. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 31 July 2019, 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, relevant portions of 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. Although enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 14 February 2005. On 22 August 2005, medical staff diagnosed him with headache syndromes and having a history of chronic migrainous-type cephalgia, existing prior to his entry onto active duty. At that time, it was recommended that he be processed for an administrative separation. On 31 August 2005, Petitioner was counseled concerning his erroneous enlistment, and that his medical condition was determined not to be a disability. He was notified that administrative discharge action was initiated to separate him from the Marine Corps by reason of a physical condition, not a disability. Petitioner’s case was forwarded to the separation authority recommending that he be separated by reason of convenience of the government, and that he receive an honorable discharge. Additionally, it was stated that Petitioner’s condition was so severe as to impair his ability to complete his required entry-level training, and that he did not possess the physical ability to continue active service in the Marine Corps. On 9 September 2005, the separation authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that the Petitioner be honorably discharged from the Marine Corps due to a physical condition, not a disability. On 13 September 2005, Petitioner received an honorable discharge and was assigned an RE-4 reentry code. d. With his application, Petitioner request that his reentry code be changed to allow him the opportunity to reenlist. He further states that he believes his record is in error or unjust because the circumstance surrounding his discharge was specifically characterized as an erroneous enlistment due to a physical condition, not a disability, and due to no fault of his own. Petitioner asserts that he had good performance trait marks, received an honorable discharge, had no disciplinary problems, and believes he should have been assigned an RE-3 reentry code for erroneous enlistment, condition not a disability. Petitioner submitted a letter from his civilian physician that states Petitioner has been his patient, and was in his adolescent years when he received treatment for migraines. The physician also states that Petitioner has not had to seek treatment or medication for migraines in more than 10 years, and no longer suffers from the physical condition for which he was discharged from the Marine Corps. In this regard, Petitioner’s discharge reenlistment code of RE-4 means that he is not recommended for reenlistment. However, Petitioner could have been assigned a code of RE-3P, meaning he failed to meet physical/medical standards. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosure (3), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting relief. The record reflects that the Petitioner was properly discharged. In this regard, the Board concluded that no useful purpose was served by the assignment of the most restrictive reenlistment code of RE-4. Under the circumstances, and although an RE-3P could have been assigned in his case, the assignment of an RE-1 code more accurately reflects the quality of Petitioner’s service, and will allow recruiting personnel, who are responsible for reviewing the feasibility of satisfying personnel manning goals, to determine whether or not Petitioner meets the standards for reenlistment. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 13 September 2005, he was assigned an RE-1 reentry code. That no further relief be granted. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval records. That upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received on 31 May 2018. 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 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.