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

WDP crs wma
Docket No.9567-03
July 12, 2004

MS XXXX

Dear Ms. XXXX:

This is in reference to your letter received by this Board on July 8, 2004, requesting reconsideration. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of May 7, 2004, that your request had been denied.

Your letter has been carefully examined. Although at least some of the evidence you have submitted is new, it is not material. In other words, even if this information was presented to the Board, the decision would inevitably be the same. Accordingly, reconsideration is not appropriate at this time.

It is regretted that the facts and circumstances of  your case are such that a more favorable reply cannot he made.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

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

CRS
Docket No: 9567-03
7 May 2004

MS XXXXX

Dear Ms. XXXX:

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

A three member panel of the Board f or Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 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. Your medical records were not available for review.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 2 February 1982 at age 17. The record reflects that you received three nonjudicial punishments. The offenses included an unauthorized absence of seven days, absence from your appointed place of duty on ten occasions, willful disobedience of a lawful order on three occasions, and dereliction of duty. Subsequently, on 13 August 1984 you attempted suicide with an overdose of ferrous sulfate.

On 20 August 1984 the commanding officer recommended that you be separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. When informed of the recommendation, you elected to waive the right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and you were discharged on 14 September 1984 with an other than honorable discharge. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and the contention that your sexual trauma due to being raped caused or contributed to your misconduct. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of frequent involvement with military authorities. In this regard, the Board noted that you were the subject of three disciplinary actions within a period of less than three years. Further, there is no evidence in the record, and you have submitted none, to show that you suffered from sexual trauma at the time of your service. Additionally, even if you did, there is no indication that the trauma caused an inability to know right from wrong or adhere to the right, or that it was sufficiently mitigating to warrant recharacterization. Further you waived the right to an ADB, your best opportunity to show that you should be retained or receive a better characterization of service.

Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to misconduct. Since you have been treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of your reenlistment code.

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.

									Sincerely,

									W. DEAN PFEIFFER
									Executive Director

2