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

							TRG
		Docket No: 8356—07
		21 May 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 13 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 12 May 1972 at age 18. The documentation to support separation processing is not filed in your record and the details of your case are unknown. However, your medical record indicates that you were separated because of a swollen and painful ankle which had not improved after treatment. Apparently, the Navy believed that there was at least some problems with your ankle prior to enlistment and that you had been enlisted in error. You were honorably discharged on 21 July 1972. The narrative reason for separation entered on your DD Form 214 is “enlisted in error”.

Regulations in effect at the time and in effect now allow for an individual to be separated from the Navy because they have been enlisted in error. Those regulations also allow for the assignment of an RE-3E or an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged because of an erroneous enlistment

Since the narrative reason entered on your DD Form 214 is not considered to be derogatory and you have been treated no differently than many others, the Board concluded that a change in the reason for your discharge is not warranted. Further, you were assigned the least restrictive reenlistment code authorized by the regulations.

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