DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

SEP 26 2016 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 USC 1552. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 26 July 2016. Your allegations of error 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. The advisory opinion provided in NPC letter 5730 
Ser 91/061dated25 May 2016 was sent to you on 6 June 2016 and is being provided to you 
now. Additionally, the Board considered your responses to the Advisory Opinion dated 13 June 
and 22 July 2016. 

In regard to your request for a personal appearance, be advised the Board regulations stated 
personal appearance 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in 
the advisory opinion. Specifically, there is no official documentation such as a DD Form 1966 
or DD Form 4 proving date ofentry into the Armed Forces ofthe United States. Navy records 
show the Petitioner joining the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 29 March 1993. This is 
substantiated with the NAVPERS 1070/613 dated 10 July 1997. Additionally, the Petitioner 
believed he would reach his 20 years ofservice on 1 March 2013 and informed the Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB) and requested to change his retirement date from 29 January to 1 March 
2013. The releasing authority agreed with the Petitioner since it was a short time without 
knowing ifthe information was accurate or not. The Board could not agree with the inclination 
ofthe PEB to push the Petitioner's retirement date until he reached 20 satisfactory years towards 
a reserve retirement which would have been 17 October 2013. Lastly, the Petitioner was 
discharged on 14 August 2005 and reenlisted in the Navy Reserves on 18 October 2005 which 
caused a break in service. The Petitioner believed that ifhe reenlisted within 3 months that the 
"time would continue unbroken''. This belief was in error on the Petitioner. Accordingly, your 
application has been denied. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished 
upon request. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action carmot 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 of regularity 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,