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

		

		TJR
Docket No: 7049-07
22 May 2008

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 20 May 2008. 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 25 October 2000 at age 22. You served without disciplinary incident until 31 January 2001, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was a six—month suspended $100 forfeiture of pay. Shortly thereafter, on 27 March 2001, you were referred for a psychiatric evaluation after being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status. You were diagnosed with two conditions which rendered you ineligible for future service and/or retention, and were assessed to be a low risk for suicide and/or homicide. On 30 March 2001 you received NJP for a 27 day period of UA and were awarded reduction to paygrade E-l and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The 31 January 2001 suspended forfeitures were also vacated at this time.

On 3 April 2001 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At that time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 16 April 2001 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 19 April 2001 this recommendation
was approved and the discharge authority directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and on 27 April 2001 you were so discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and your assertion that you were unjustly assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code since this code will not allow you to fulfill your military goals. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change of your reenlistment code because of the seriousness of your misconduct and your diagnosed adjustment and intermittent explosive disorders. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your case to an ADB. Finally, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when a Sailor is discharged by reason of misconduct. Accordingly, your application has been denied.

The Board also noted that you are entitled to submit the attached
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the
Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 293) to the Naval
Council of Personnel Boards, attention: Naval Discharge Review
Board, 720 Kennon Street, S. E., Room 309, Washington Navy Yard,
Washington, DC 20374-5023 for consideration of an upgrade of your
discharge and a change in your narrative reason for discharge.

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