DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-~1OO

TRG
Docket No:	2467-06
   19 January 2006

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 9 January 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 4 September 2001 at age 18. You then served without incident until 17 June 2003. On that date, you were diagnosed with alcohol dependence and a borderline personality disorder. The psychologist recommended an expeditious administrative separation because he considered you a continuing risk to harm yourself or others if retained in the Navy. However, you were recommended for a Level III, Inpatient, alcohol rehabilitation program.

Your medical record is unavailable, but it appears that you attended the Level III rehabilitation program. On 27 January 2004 your command informed the Navy Personnel Command •(NPC) that you had been screened and found unsuitable for operational duty. After review, NPC directed that you be processed for an administrative discharge.

On 7 February 2004, you were notified of separation processing by reason of a physical or mental condition that did not constitute a physical disability, but which interfered with your performance of duty. You then elected to exercise your right to consult with
counsel and to submit a statement. After review, the separation authority directed an honorable discharge. The performance evaluation for the period ending 29 February 2004 is adverse. The individual trait average is 1.83 and you were not recommended for promotion or retention in the Navy. You were honorably discharged on 31 March 2004. At that time, you were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

You state in your application that your condition is curable and your record should be corrected to allow your reenlistment in the future. You have provided a copy of your post service college transcript, which indicates that you have been an excellent student since your discharge from the Navy.

The Board concluded that the adverse psychiatric evaluation which resulted in diagnoses of alcohol dependence and personality disorder were sufficient to support the determination that you were unsuitable for operational duty, and the decision to discharge you from the Navy.

Regulations allow for the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code in cases such as yours. The Board believed that the psychiatric evaluation and final adverse performance evaluation were sufficient to support the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code. 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,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

2