DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203705100

SMW
Docket No: 9544-06
26 February 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 23 February 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 Navy on 7 August 1989 at age 18. On 7 December 1989 and 26 April 1991 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobedience of a lawful order and dereliction in the performance of your duty.

On 8 May 1991 a psychiatric evaluation found that you were in remission from poly-substance abuse, and also diagnosed a passive aggressive personality disorder. The evaluation concluded by finding you fit for duty.

On 16 May 1991 suspended punishment from the NJP of 26 April 1991 was vacated due to continued misconduct, and on 18 May 1991 you received NJP for two instances of absence from your appointed place of duty. On 22 May 1991 a follow-up psychiatric evaluation confirmed the passive aggressive personality disorder and recommended discharge. However, on 24 May 1991 you received NJP for dereliction in the performance of your duty and failure to go to your appointed place of duty.

On 26 May 1991 you began a 15 day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and missed the movement of your ship on 6 June 1991. On 14 June 1991 suspended punishment from the NJP of 24 May 1991 was vacated due to your continued misconduct. On 26 June 1991 a medical evaluation stated that you had missed several appointments and had gone UA in order to be recommended for an administrative separation. On 23 September 1991 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of the 15 day UA, two instances of absence from your appointed place of duty, and missing the movement of your ship.

On 7 October 1991 your commanding officer (CO) initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 3 March 1992 the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 6 March 1992 you were so discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code, which means that you are neither recommended nor eligible for reenlistment.

Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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

2