Docket No: 0555-21 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear  
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 2021.  The names and votes of the panel members 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 the 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, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 9 January 2014.  On 28 January 2014, you were diagnosed with urticarial, which is considered disqualifying for service on active duty, and separation was recommended because the condition was not correctable to meet Navy standards.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of erroneous enlistment.  After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended an uncharacterized (UNCHAR) Entry Level Separation (ELS) by reason of erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a physical condition that existed prior to entry.  The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed discharge with an UNCHAR ELS by reason of erroneous enlistment.  You were discharged with an UNCHAR ELS on 13 February 2014 and assigned a RE-8 (temporary medical condition or unsatisfactory initial performance and conduct) reentry code.   
 
The Board carefully considered your most recent contentions and all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  Although you did not specify your request relief in this submission, the Board considered your requested relief from your earlier submission which included your desire to change your RE-8 reentry code to a RE-1 reentry code so you may seek reenlistment as an officer now that you are a naturalized citizen.  Alternatively, you requested your discharge be upgraded to an honorable characterization of service.  The Board considered your statement that over the past seven years your request for a waiver of your reentry code has been repeatedly denied “as if urticaria is a deadly disease.”  The Board also considered your contention that the latest Department of Defense Instruction has removed language regarding recurrent episodes of urticaria and the condition is no longer disqualifying.  Additionally, the Board considered your contentions regarding your waiver of your procedural rights.  Specifically, you contend you were “disillusioned” because two instructors “showed their contempt for then President Obama.”  You further contend you do not recall the 180-day requirement being communicated to you during the meetings, and, even if you were told, you weren’t “informed enough.”  Additionally, you stated that you had seen “folks spending close to a year if not longer at the holding place without being productive in life.”  Further, you contend you waived your procedural rights because you “considered the nation’s deficit and debt” so you “wanted to take myself out of the equation and go back to the civilian world to pay more taxes instead.”  The Board also considered your contention that if “Hacksaw Ridge was released before my experience, I probably would not have waived my rights.  But I didn’t have a dad who had connections.”  Additionally, the Board considered your contention that “there should be new guidance” in place of the Wilkie Memo because “we have a new Commander in Chief President Biden and first-ever African American Secretary of Defense.”  Lastly, you contend the Board did not “seem to have referred to the spirit behind 10 U.S.C. 1553a.”   
 
Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that a RE-8 reentry code was appropriately assigned to you at discharge because it is authorized for recruits assigned to Recruit Training Command, for initial training only, that experience temporary medical conditions or unsatisfactory initial performance and conduct.  A RE-8 may not prohibit reenlistment, but requires that a waiver be obtained.  Recruiting personnel are responsible for determining whether you meet the standards for reenlistment and whether or not a request for a waiver of your reentry code is feasible.  The Board noted your disappointment and frustration in repeatedly being denied a waiver but concluded the assignment of the RE-8 reentry code was not in error nor unjust.  The Board also determined there was no error or injustice in your administrative separation processing, and concluded you were appropriately discharged with an UNCHAR ELS because you had not reached 180 days of continuous active military service.  The Board considered your contentions regarding why you waived your procedural rights and further noted that although you waived the right to consult counsel, submit a statement, or receive higher-level review, you elected the right to obtain copies of the documents that would be forwarded to the separation authority.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your discharge and change your reentry code so you can seek reenlistment.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined you were appropriately discharged with an UNCHAR ELS.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
 
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,  
3/15/2021
Executive Director