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

SMW
Docket No: 7256-07
10 April 2008

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 9 April 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.

On 3 March 1987, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 25. On 19 November 1987, a medical evaluation stated that you still had idispathic urtialia edema, despite treatment and consultation. A medical board found you unfit for duty. On 6 January 1988, the Disability Evaluation System concurred with the medical board’s findings and recommended separation. On 26 February 1988, a service record entry stated that you were recommended for retention with the exception of your disqualifying factor of having a physical disability. On 26 February 1988, you were honorably discharged by reason of convenience of the government due to a physical disability and assigned an RE-3P reenlistment code.

Regulations authorize assignment of an RE-3P reenlistment code to members who are discharged due to a physical disability. Furthermore, such a code is not considered adverse and may be considered for a waiver. 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—3P 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