DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

JMP 
Docket No: 6006-17 

OCT 2 


Dear : 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions ofTitle 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious 
consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application 
has been denied. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined a personal appearance 
with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding ofthe issues involved. 
Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your 
case based on the evidence of record. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 16 August 2018. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror 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, relevant portions of your naval record, and 
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 11 October 1989. It appears you 
served without disciplinary incident until 2 July 1991 when you received nonjudicial punishment 
(NJP) for disrespecting a petty officer on two occasions and failing to obey a lawful order. On 25 
June 1992, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) for an unauthorized absence 
(UA) lasting one hour and forty minutes. On 20 December 1993, upon completion ofrequired 
active service, you were discharged with an honorable characterization ofservice and assigned a 
RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, your desire to upgrade your 
reentry code in order to qualify for a job, and your contentions you did not misbehave, act 
disrespectful, fail a urinalysis, or receive a conviction at court-martial. The Board reviewed 
MILPERSMAN (MPN) 3620150 and MPN 1040300 which state that in order to be eligible for 
reenlistment, a member must have been recommended by the commanding officer for 
reenlistment. In accordance with OPNAV Instruction 1160.Sc, in order to satisfy professional 
growth criteria for the first enlistment, a member must be 1) serving as a petty officer, 2) serving 
in paygrade E-3 having passed an examination for advancement to paygrade E-4 and be currently 
recommended for advancement, or 3) have formerly been a petty officer and be currently 
recommended for advancement to E-4. The Board noted you did not meet the required criteria to 
be recommended for reenlistment at the time ofyour completion ofrequired active service. 
Further, the Board noted that the record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your 
contentions that you did not misbehave, act disrespectful, or receive a conviction at courtmartial. 
The Board concluded your contentions were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case 
because a RE-4 reentry code is authorized when an individual is not recommended for 
reenlistment. In the end, the Board concluded you received the correct reentry code. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all 
official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 



Executive Director