DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No. 1587-16 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle of the United States Code, section 1552. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 8 August 2016. 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 ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, 
regulations and policies. 

In regard to your request for a personal appearance, be advised that the Board regulations state 
personal appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board 
determines that such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In your case, the Board 
determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the 
evidence ofthe record. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or 
injustice. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 24 September 2013. The Board 
found that on 25 September 2013, during the Moment ofTruth, you made a statement that you 
had attempted suicide at the age of 17, and had been under the influence ofsome kind of drugs 
your friend gave you but it had the opposite effect on you. Subsequently, you were referred for a 
mental health evaluation. During the evaluation, you admitted to attempting to overdose on 
sleeping medication which was prescribed for your father and blacked out for three days. 
You were diagnosed with Substance Induced Mood Disorder (unknown substance), with 
depressive features that existed prior to your service. It was recommended that you receive an 
uncharacterized entry level separation (ELS) due to a disqualifying psychiatric condition. After 
being afforded all of your procedural rights, you received an uncharacterized ELS on 
19 November 2013. At that time, you were assigned a RE-4 (ineligible for reenlistment) reentry 
code. 

The Board, in its review ofyour application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, 
such as your entire record of service, you heard ofmultiple stories regarding sexual abuse of 
women in the Navy while in training, desire to upgrade your reentry code, and assertions that 
there was a strong psychological control over recruits, and concern for your safety. Additionally, 
that you did not enlist into the Navy fraudulently, that at the time you made the statements that 
led to your separation, you felt it was necessity to speak dishonestly in order to be later 
separated, due to the fact that your experience in the Navy while in training was less than 
satisfactory. You further claim that you were only 17 years old at the time, which is led you to 
making the false statements about your prior medical history knowing it would disqualify you 
from serving. Nevertheless, the Board determined that these factors were not sufficient enough 
to warrant changing your reentry code given your failure to disclose your prior medical 
condition. The Board noted applicable regulations require the assignment of and RE-4 reentry . 
code to individuals who are separated due to a mental condition that existed prior to entry into 
the service. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reentry code. 
Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission ofnew evidence 
within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously 
considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to 
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director