DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TJR
Docket No: 7533-03
9 August 2004

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 2004. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or in lust ice

You enlisted in the Navy on 27 February 1996 at age 19 and se~ved for nearly two years without disciplinary incident. However, your record contains an administrative remarks entry which states that you were absent from your appointed place of duty for about 23 hours from 22 to 23 February 1998. The record does not reflect, however, the punishment taken for this misconduct.

On 3 March and again on 3 April 1998 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA), making a false official statement, absence from your appointed place of duty, and failure to obey a lawful order.

On 14 April 1998 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board. Subsequently, your commanding officer recommended separation under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, stating in part, as follows:

Due to Member’s pattern of misconduct, numerous divisional counseling, lack of motivation and initiative, and his inability to cope with military life..., recommend a general discharge.

On 29 April 1998 the discharge authority then directed discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. On 8 May 1998 you were issued a general discharge and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth, post service conduct, and your assertion that you need your discharge upgraded so that you may pursue a career within a police department. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of the reenlistment code because of your repetitive misconduct. Further, an individual separated by reason of misconduct must receive an RE-4 reenlistment code. Finally, individuals discharged by reason of misconduct normally receive discharges under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, the Board concluded that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge. Accordingly, your application has been denied.

The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.