Docket No: 1091-20 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.   
 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  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, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 15 August 1979.  According to the information in the record, at an unidentified time, you acknowledged committing fraudulent enlistment by your failure to reveal your pre-service use of drugs.  On 19 September 1979, you revealed your fraudulent enlistment during an interview with the command’s legal investigator.  The legal investigator noted that you admitted to using PCP twice and marijuana twice.  However, no further action was contemplated and you were allowed to complete training.  On 1 March 1982, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of convenience of the government (COG) due to burden on the command under the Project Upgrade Program (PUP).  After waiving your procedural rights, on 5 March 1982, your Commanding Officer (CO) recommended an honorable discharge by reason of COG due to burden on the command.  Your CO also noted that your performance was non-contributory to the unit’s readiness and the Navy, which resulted in you being recommended for separation under PUP.  You acknowledged not being eligible for reenlistment and receiving an RE-4 reenlistment code under PUP by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  As a result of the forgoing, the discharge authority approved and directed an honorable discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment code due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  On 5 March 1982, you were discharged.  
 
Although the Board lacked your entire service record, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officials, and in the absence of substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Petitioner, the Board presumes that you were properly discharged from the Navy and received the correct reenlistment code. 
   
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to change your RE-4 reenlistment code and contentions that you had no prior disciplinary misconduct and you were misled into a discharge.  However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief given your discharge under the Project Upgrade Program, and your acknowledgement that you were not eligible for reenlistment. 
   
In regards to your contention that you had no prior disciplinary misconduct, the Board noted that the record clearly shows that on 5 March 1982, you acknowledged being discharged under PUP by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  Regarding your contention that you were misled into a discharge, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.   
  
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 matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or 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,