Dear :  
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 26 December 2019.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  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.  Consequently, your application has been denied.   
 
Although your original 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, 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 originally enlisted in the Navy on 20 August 1981 and reenlisted on 2 June 1986.  At the completion of your required active service on 30 March 1990, you were discharged from the Navy with an Honorable characterization of service and assigned an “RE-4” reentry code.  In the Navy, an RE-4 reentry code means you are ineligible for reenlistment.   
 
Notwithstanding your RE-4 reentry code, you contend that:  (a) you were not told or aware of the RE-4 code on your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), (b) you were not showed any documentation why an RE-4 reentry code was placed on your DD Form 214, (c) you do not know why an RE-4 code was placed on your DD Form 214, (d) you were not convicted of a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) in 1989 and you received a good conduct award and an honorable discharge.  Unfortunately, the Board determined these mitigating factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your reentry code or granting any other relief in your case. 
 
The Board initially observed that the SPCM documentation contained in your service record was erroneously filed in your Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and belonged to another service member.  As a result, the Board did not consider the errant SPCM conviction during its deliberations.  However, the Board noted contrary to your contentions that a “Page 13” administrative remarks dated 30 March 1990 is contained in your OMPF stating:  (a) you were interviewed, (b) the advantage of immediate reenlistment was explained to you, (c) that you did not intend to reenlist, and (d) that you were “not recommended for reenlistment RE-4.”  Moreover, your performance evaluation for the twelve-month period ending 31 March 1990 that you personally signed specifically did not include a recommendation for advancement or retention.  The comments section of the evaluation also included several troubling comments: 
 
Personal problems caused unnecessary administrative burden on squadron.  Unable to keep family/personal problems from affecting squadron…Violated court and command restraining orders on further contact with family after history of violent incidents.  Evicted from Navy Lodge after family argument 90 Feb.  Evicted from Navy housing, 89 Oct.  Has received numerous letters of indebtedness.  Petty Officer [P] has consistently allowed personal problems to adversely affect squadron.  He has made no progress in controlling his behavior.  Family problems have involved military and civil authorities on numerous occasions.  He attended counseling with negative results.  Not recommended for advancement of retention.   
 
The Board concluded that your command was justified in not recommending you for reenlistment and that your personal behavior and off-duty issues merited your RE-4 reentry code notwithstanding your honorable characterization of service.  Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity with your reentry code, and that such reentry code was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge. 
 
The Board also reviewed your application under the recent guidance provided in the Under Secretary of Defense’s memorandum dated 25 July 2018 entitled, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” (USD Memo).  The purpose of the USD Memo is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.”  The USD Memo noted that “increasing attention is being paid to…the circumstances under which citizens should be considered for second chances and the restoration of rights forfeited,” and that “BCM/NRs have the authority to upgrade discharges or correct military records to ensure fundamental fairness.”  The USD Memo sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief.  However, even in light of the USD Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief at no cost to the Board from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
 
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,