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

SMW
Docket No: 10635-06
16 May 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 15 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.

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 13 August 1992 at age 18 and served without incident until 2 November 1993, when you were counseled regarding your failure to follow procedures while performing maintenance on a .38 caliber pistol. You then served without incident until 8 December 1994, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for loss, damage, and destruction of property. You then served without incident until 6 August 1996, when you received NJP for two unspecified periods of unauthorized absence (UA). On 12 August 1996 you acknowledged your final performance evaluation which did not recommend your retention and stated that you had been counseled on numerous occasions for sleeping on watch, tardiness, inappropriate use of government telephones, financial irresponsibility, and substandard performance. On 12 August 1996 you were honorably released from active duty due to completion of required active service. At that time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code, which means that you are neither eligible nor recommended for reenlistment.

Regulations direct the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code   is released from active duty due to completion of required active service and is not recommended for retention. Given your record of misconduct and poor performance, and 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 PFIEFFER
Executive Director

2