DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3822-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) BUPERSINST 1001.39F (c) BUPERSINST 1001.39E Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former sailor, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting correction to his Official Military Personnel File to reflect a change to his reentry code to allow for reenlistment. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 14 May 2020, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 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 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 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 review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 26 May 2004. From 24 January 2005 to 9 February 2005, he completed the non-prior service accession course. On 17 April 2005, Petitioner was placed in a Temporarily Not Physically Qualified (TNPQ) status. On 26 April 2005, his Commanding Officer (CO) notified him of the requirement to report to the medical department each month to update his medical status. On 20 June 2005, the CO sent a second notification regarding the requirement to update his medical status, but it was returned as undelivered. On 10 August 2005, Petitioner was sent a final notification regarding his dental requirements. d. Subsequently, Petitioner was notified of pending administrative separation by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve. The notification was mailed to him but was returned undelivered. On 21 November 2005, the CO recommended a general, under honorable conditions (GEN), discharge by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve. On the same day, an administrative remarks (Page 13) entry was made stating Petitioner was discharged locally with a GEN characterization of service by reason of unsatisfactory drill performance. On 11 January 2006, the discharge authority, Commander, Navy Personnel Command directed Petitioner’s discharge by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve with a GEN characterization of service, but the command erred and stated unsatisfactory drill performance as the reason for discharge on the Page 13. On 17 March 2014, CNPC added a corrected Page 13 in Petitioner’s record stating unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve as the reason for discharge. e. According to the Petitioner, a Police Officer, he enlisted in the Naval Reserve in May 2004, a time when his civilian post afforded him the flexibility to attend all mandatory drill dates. He further explains he was subsequently transferred to Narcotics Division within the Organized Crime Control Bureau and placed in an 18-month detective investigator career track. After he missed his civilian work for military obligations, he was told he would be removed from the promotional track program if he continued to miss work for military obligations. Petitioner contends he consulted his CO. Specifically, he contends the following: 1) Petitioner was improperly advised by his CO when told he could choose to not attend drill and be separated with a GEN discharge but later reenlist when his civilian job made the necessary accommodations. He further contends that by not sending him to the legal office, the CO precluded Petitioner from receiving the proper legal advice regarding his rights as a reserve service member. 2) Petitioner contends the command violated reference (b) because he had a remaining military service obligation and could not be locally discharged. He further contends reference (b) was not followed because it provided other options for Petitioner such as probation for six months or excusal of some absences. 3) Petitioner contends that, because of the CO’s grade and position of authority, he had an obligation to provide accurate information. Petitioner’s reliance on the CO’s information was reasonable. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board carefully reviewed Petitioner’s application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered each of the contentions outlined above. Although reference (b) was not applicable at the time of Petitioner’s administrative processing, the Board reviewed the applicable version, reference (c). The Board noted the command erred in discharging Petitioner locally as evidenced by the 21 November 2005 Page 13 entry but the error was corrected when CNPC directed Petitioner’s discharge and a new Page 13 entry was entered into Petitioner’s record recording the discharge date as 11 January 2006. The Board also noted the command erred on the 11 January 2006 Page 13 entry by stating the reason for discharge as unsatisfactory drill performance when the discharge authority directed discharge by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve. This error was corrected by the issuance of a new Page 13 entry on 17 March 2014. Noting the numerous administrative errors and the deviation from the applicable guidance, the Board concluded Petitioner overcame the presumption of regularity in the administrative process and determined it was in the interest of justice to grant Petitioner’s requested relief by changing his reentry code to one which will allow for reenlistment. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action: Petitioner be issued a new administrative remarks entry assigning him a“RE-1J” reentry code. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 3 April 2019. 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.