DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100

SMW
	Docket No: 1944-07
7 September 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 6 September 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.

On 3 October 1988, you enlisted in the Navy at age 17 with parental consent. On 20 March 1989, you received a medical evaluation after you were found drunk. On 7 February 1990, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for simple assault. On 14 February 1990, you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct, and warned that further infractions could result in administrative separation.

On 2 July 1990, you had NJP for an unspecified period of unauthorized absence (UA). On 21 December 1990, a medical evaluation diagnosed you as being psychologically dependent on alcohol and recommended treatment. On 4 March 1991, you began residential alcohol rehabilitation treatment that was terminated on 11 April 1991, due to your failure, inability or refusal to complete the program. On 22 April 1991, during a medical evaluation, you stated that you drank four beers the past night and were not going to stay sober. On 18 June 1991, an alcoholism recovery facility evaluation stated that you refused to take antabuse and refused to stop drinking. The evaluation diagnosed you as alcohol dependent and recommended separation.

On 2 July 1991, your commanding officer recommended administrative separation by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure, and recommended no less than a general discharge. In connection with this process, you acknowledged the separation action, objected to discharge, and submitted a statement. On 28 August 1991, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed that you be discharged by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure and that your characterization of service be determined as warranted by your service record. On 30 August 1991, you acknowledged by service record entry that you were not eligible for reenlistment due to alcohol rehabilitation failure. On that same date, you were separated with an honorable discharge by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code, which means that you were neither eligible nor recommended for reenlistment.

Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to alcohol rehabilitation failure. Given your diagnoses of being alcohol dependent, termination from residential alcohol rehabilitation treatment, and continued use of alcohol, 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director