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

TRG
Docket No:2196-06
11 July 2007

		Dear

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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2007. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 17 November 1997 at age 19. on 13 December 1998 following an unauthorized absence of about 20 hours, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in processing for an administrative discharge.

During the period from 25 May 1999 to 26 January 2000, you received nonjudicial punishment on four occasions. Your offenses were four instances of disobedience, an unspecified period of unauthorized absence, insubordination, accessory after the fact, and conspiracy.

Based on the foregoing record, you were processed for an administrative discharged by reason of misconduct. In connection with this processing, you elected to waive the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board. After review, the discharge authority directed discharge under other than honorable conditions and you were so discharged on 27 December 2000. At that time, you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
		In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, and desire to again serve in the military. The Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterjzation of your service given your extensive record of misconduct. The Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.

Regulations require the assignment of an RE—4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of 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 the RE—4 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