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

SMW
Docket No: 7810-06
 26 January 2007

This is in reference to your application f or 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 24 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 24 August 1992 at age 21. On 21 September 1992, while in recruit training, you were diagnosed with shin splints. On 30 October 1992 a medical board found that you had a stress fracture that did not exist prior to enlistment. Your case was then referred to the physical evaluation board (PEB), and on 30 November 1992 you were ordered home to await disposition of your case. On 7 December 1992 the PEB directed separation after finding that you were physically unfit for duty due to the stress fracture. On 14 January 1993 you were separated with an uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of a physical disability.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your good service and the fact that your disability was incurred while at recruit training. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge. In this regard, regulations authorize an entry level
separation to service members who are discharged during the first 180 days of active duty. Such a separation is uncharacterized and not considered derogatory. Therefore, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.

		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