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

				 CRS
Docket No: 5943-06
4 May 2007

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 2 May 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. The Board also considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 3 July 2006, a copy of which is enclosed.

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 9 October 1984. The record reflects that you received three nonjudicial punishments. The offenses included absence from your appointed place of duty on two occasions, failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and violation of a lawful general regulation.

On 26 January 1987 an administrative discharge board recommended that you be separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 20 February 1987 you received 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 you were a victim of racial prejudice. The Board concluded that those factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change in the reason for discharge, given your frequent involvement with military authorities. The Board noted that you were the subject of three disciplinary actions within a period of less than three years. You submitted no evidence to support your contention of racism and the record contains no such evidence. In addition, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion concerning your 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 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,

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE	EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:	BCNR  APPLICATION CASE OF FORMER
	 SUBJ: RECODE

End:	(1) NAVMC 118(11)
	(2)	NAVMC l18(ll)a
	(3)	NAVMC ll8(ll)b
	(4)	NAVMC ll8(ll)c
	(5)	NAVMC 118(12)
	(6)	NAVMC ll8(12)a
            (7) DD Form 149 of 28 Dec 05

1.	service record has been reviewed and it has been determined that at the time of separation he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, which means that he was not recommended for reenlistment. The reenlistment code was correctly assigned and was based on his overall record.

2.	was discharged under other than honorable conditions on February 20, 1987 by reason of misconduct. A review of his service record indicates that he was counseled concerning deficiencies that include: misuse of government property; substandard appearance in Marine Corps Uniform; lack of professional competence within assigned occupational specialty; not being recommended for promotion; repeated lateness to work; having an unprofessional attitude; and his disrespectful manner towards superiors. The disciplinary portion of his record shows he received three nonjudicial punishments under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for unauthorized absence and failure to obey an order. Enclosures (1) through (6) pertain.

3.	After a review of all relevant information, this Headquarters concurs in the professional evaluation of speciation for reenlistment at the time of separation. Once a code is correctly assigned it is not routinely changed or upgraded as a result of events that occur after separation or based merely on the passage of time.

4.	Enclosure (7) is returned for final action.

Head, Perfomance Evaluation
Review Branch Personnel Management Division By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps